Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest figures available for the output of British manufacturing industry; how these figures compare with the corresponding figures in January 1979; and if he will take steps to increase the output of British manufacturing industry.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): In the three months August to October 1982 the index of production for manufacturing industry was 88·3 compared with 105 in the first half of 1979.
Recent steps taken to help industry become more competitive include the further cut in the national insurance surcharge, measures on energy prices and the ending of the deferment in the payment of regional development grants. All these measures will be of direct benefit to manufacturing industry.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that the output of manufacturing industry is a fair reflection of the state of the economy, and that the fact that output today is probably at its lowest for 15 years is a true sign that the Government are presiding over the destruction of our industrial base?

Mr. Lamont: We have the deepest recession that Europe has seen for 30 years. I am not sure which solution the hon. Gentleman advocates. Is he advocating that we should now have a two-stage depreciation of sterling, as advanced by the Opposition? If so, will he tell us how that will be achieved without a rise in interest rates?

Mr. Orme: Will the Minister answer the question and tell us what the Government are going to do about the problem? Is it not a fact that manufacturing output is down by more than 20 per cent. since 1979? Is not our manufacturing output lowest when compared with the major OECD countries? It is not a matter of world recession. We want to know why Great Britain is the worst developed country with regard to manufacturing industry.

Mr. Lamont: Over the past year manufacturing output has fallen in the United Kingdom by 1·5 per cent., in France by 3·5 per cent., in Germany by 4·5 per cent. and in the United States by 9·5 per cent. This country entered the recession before other countries, but, as a result of the Government's anti-inflation policies, British industry is now more competitive and efficient. We are now seeing the benefits, because we are not suffering the drop that other countries are. We are well positioned to take advantage of the world upturn when it comes.

Synthetic Fibres

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will consult the trade unions in the United Kingdom synthetic fibres industry before finalising his response to the proposed agreement among the major European producers of synthetic fibres to cut capacity within the European Economic Community by half a million tonnes.

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will estimate the effect on the British textile industry of the proposed agreement among the major European producers of synthetic fibres to cut their capacity within the European Economic Community by half a million tonnes.

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The agreement between the major European synthetic fibre producers to reduce production capacity was in fact signed last October. It is not an inter-Government agreement and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to consult the trade unions about it.
I do not anticipate that the agreement will have any effect on the British textile industry, which will still be able to obtain the yarns and fibres that it requires.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If there are to be reductions in jobs and capacity in the synthetic fibres industry, what assurance can the Minister give that those reductions will be shared equally by all companies and countries, and that countries such as Spain and Portugal, which are privy to the discussions but not signatories to the agreement, will not build up capacity before they enter the EC?

Mr. Baker: The purpose of the agreement was that the European producers should join together voluntarily to try to reduce the substantial over-capacity in the industry. We do not expect any further reductions in capacity in the United Kingdom. We shall be looking for reductions in Spain and Italy.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister take heed of what happened in the Common Market over the agreement to rationalise steel production? We carried out rationalisation, but our EC partners did not. Will the Minister ensure that he does not fall into that trap? If he does, it will not just decimate the synthetic fibres—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are already beginning to have arguments instead of questions. We must have questions.

Mr. Hoyle: It is a very important question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt about the importance of the question. I am worried about the interrogatory part.

Mr. Hoyle: If that is carried out, it could decimate not just—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better have the answer now.

Mr. Baker: I shall try to answer the assertions. The point that I should like to stress again is that this agreement is an attempt by the companies in Europe to rationalise and to reduce their capacity. The Governments are not involved in this matter. I understand that the companies would expect to see reductions particularly in Italy and Spain rather than in this country.

Mr. McNally: Is not the problem that neither this Government nor the Community have any idea of the size or shape of the textile industry that they want? Would it not be better to decide that and then give the incentives and the long-term perspective, which would allow the industry to plan ahead?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman reflected upon what he was asking, he would appreciate that it is unrealistic for any Government to try to set an ideal size for any particular industry. Whether an industry is too small or too big must depend on factors outside those that Governments can influence.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that many European countries are subsidising the yarn spinning end

of their industries? Would it not be to the advantage of British yarn spinners if European Governments agreed not to subsidise over-capacity? Does my hon. Friend believe that the agreement that has been achieved is sensible?

Mr. Baker: I certainly agree with the last comment of my hon. Friend. The agreement that has been reached is eminently sensible. We have made the strongest protest to the Italian Government over the way in which they have been subsidising and maintaining capacity in an industry which, on a European basis, has substantial over-capacity.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that in any industry such as the British textile industry, where 210,000 jobs have been lost since 1979, there is bound to be considerable worry among the trade unions and the work force? Bearing in mind that in negotiations with the EC we always get the neck of the chicken, will the Minister give us a real assurance that the Government will protect the British synthetic fibre industry?

Mr. Baker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on joining the industry team on the Labour Benches.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I discuss these matters with the trade unions in the textile industry. In fact, about six weeks ago I had a meeting with the British Textile Confederation, and I take its views on board. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of the British textile industry are strongly protected in all the negotiations in Brussels.

Video Recorders and Tapes

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to encourage the manufacture of television video recorders and tapes in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I share the hon. Member's concern that the United Kingdom production of video tape recorders has only recently commenced. My Department was able to offer assistance for that project and stands ready to help other new ventures in this field and in the manufacture of video cassettes. We have already taken steps to ensure that potential investors in this sector are fully aware of the Government assistance that is available.

Mr. Strang: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise that the extent to which we have become more and more dependent upon imports of high technology goods of this nature is an extremely alarming aspect of the British economy? Were not about 2 million video tape recorders imported into the country last year, giving us the highest number of videos per household in the world?

Mr. Baker: I confirm that about 2 million video tape recorders were imported into Britain last year and that we certainly have the highest penetration of usage of any country in the world. We are clearly concerned that last year none was made in this country, but next year at least 200,000 will be made as a joint venture between a Japanese company, Thorn-EMI and AEG Telefunken at a factory in the south of England.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my hon. Friend aware that Fidelity Radio, in the London area, manufactures television video recorders? Would it not be a good thing if we heard more of that company and less of the Japanese? Does he agree that the Fidelity mark is as good as any mark that is imported?

Mr. Baker: Yes, indeed. At the moment Fidelity is the only domestic manufacturer of video tape recorders, and it makes very good ones.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the ease with which the Japanese were able to pirate the 3D camera, which was developed by Timex in Dundee, does the Minister agree that steps should now be taken by the Government to try to break the monopoly that Japan has over such high fidelity products to regain and to build up jobs here?

Mr. Baker: Basically, video tape recorder technology is Japanese, with the exception of the Philips equipment, and it is up to them to decide which companies to license. We stand ready to assist companies in Britain that want to enter licence agreements with Japanese companies. Indeed, later this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing with various Japanese companies the possibility of further investment in this country. We are already the recipient of the largest flow of overseas Japanese investment in manufacturing plants.

Mr. John Garrett: Do we not now import more Japanese video recorders by value than Japanese cars? Even under the scheme mentioned by the Minister, shall we not be lucky to have 5 per cent. of our home market in domestically produced video recorders next year? If so, should not the Government take a positive attitude on import substitution and on the creation of jobs in this country in this fast growing technology rather than simply say that it will all come right in the end? Must they not take a positive attitude towards creating such an industry if we are to survive as a technologically advanced country?

Mr. Baker: Yes, and we have a positive attitude. We have a whole series of measures to encourage investment in this country by high technology companies. In fact, this morning I opened a robotics factory in Shropshire. That is an American investment. We have similar support for the video recorder industry. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to employ similar measures to those of the French, who route imports through Poitiers, I must tell him that such policies would be self-defeating. Sony has already said that, as a result of that, it will not build a factory in France. I remind the House that behind the video recorders sold in Britain those are about 20,000 shops that sell video cassettes, and that about 15 million to 20 million video cassettes are manufactured in Britain. That would not happen if we imposed import controls.

London Borough of Ealing

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much in total grant he is making available to industry in the London borough of Ealing; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): Industry in Ealing qualifies for assistance under a variety of schemes run by my Department. Since May 1979, 16 individual offers have been made under the Science and Technology Act and section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 involving grants of £868,000 for projects involving innovation, energy conservation and coal firing.

Mr. Greenway: Those grants are welcome. Is my hon. Friend aware that Ealing is not an assisted area and does not receive industrial grants on the same scale as assisted

areas? Is he further aware that assisted areas, are drawing jobs away from unassisted areas, such as Ealing—for example, Hoover was drawn to Scotland and Wales, where it could take advantage of assisted areas facilities—and that is to the detriment of workers in such areas? Is it not most unfair?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of those problems, and my hon. Friend is very active in putting them forward. He and I have corresponded about them. I know of the efforts that he is making to retain jobs in Ealing and to achieve restructuring to provide new jobs. As a result, unemployment in Ealing is 3 per cent. lower than the national average. That is an indication of the success of my hon. Friend's efforts, and it makes it difficult to give it assisted area status.

Steel Industry

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the future prospects for the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about the future of the steel industry.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss future plans for the industry.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I have nothing to add to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 20 December 1982.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that neither the corporation, the steel industry as a whole, nor the country is assisted by the current conspiracy imminently to introduce a further and major measure of steel privatisation? Would he accept that if this goes forward, evidence is or should be in the Government's possession to illustrate that such a development would drastically and seriously further reduce our steel industry capacity and also clearly lead to a major increase in the amount of steel imported into this country?

Mr. Lamont: There are two problems. First, there is an excess of capacity in several areas of the products of the British Steel Corporation where they overlap with the private sector, and rationalisation is needed there. Secondly, there is a difficult area of competition between the public and private sectors. To see that the private sector is not damaged by subsidised competition from the public sector we think that an element of privatisation in those areas is absolutely essential. There has to be a clear boundary between the private and public sectors.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that, despite the decision to keep open Ravenscraig, more than 3,000 jobs in the Scottish steel industry have been lost during the past six months? Will the Minister tell Ian MacGregor that we have had enough of the steady haemorrhage of jobs from the Scottish industry and that, if further redundancies are being considered, it would be better to make Ian MacGregor redundant when his contract comes up for renewal later this year?

Mr. Lamont: Obviously, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Mr. MacGregor has done an excellent job as


chairman of the British Steel Corporation. He has given the corporation some hope for the future, which it has not had for a long time. The hon. Gentleman referred to job losses, which are to be regretted, but the corporation has been uncompetitive and overmanned for some time.

Mr. Hughes: With regard to Llanwern, will the Minister tell the chairman to forget about the privatisation of essential services, if only because the previous move towards private contractors led to fiddling on a massive scale? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need an early decision giving the go-ahead for the Concast plant, because any long drawn-out suspense on that matter can only lead to further demoralisation of the work force?

Mr. Lamont: The provision of the Concast plant at Llanwern is a matter for the management of the corporation, which has not yet made such a proposition. I repeat that we have always made it clear that as much of the corporation as possible should be privatised. Had that happened earlier, there would be more jobs in the British steel industry than there are today.

Mr. Michael Brown: Recognising that in the Government's statement before Christmas there was an instruction to ensure that steelmaking should continue at five plants rather than at three or four, when the Government receive the details of the corporate plan from the corporation, will my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Industry ensure that Mr. MacGregor's plan does not involve less steelmaking at plants that were not under threat of closure than might otherwise have been the case?

Mr. Lamont: We have always made it clear that, although the statement implied that the five-plant configuration should persist for the time being, decisions about the make-up of individual plants and the steel made there must be a matter for the corporation. However, I shall consider what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. John Grant: How much do the Government expect to pay to Lazards for Mr. Ian MacGregor's performance-related transfer fee? Does he agree that if Ministers were judged on the same basis, they would all be on the free transfer list and that it would be difficult to find a taker for them?

Mr. Lamont: No payment has yet been made. The matter must be decided by the review body that considers Mr. MacGregor's remuneration.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the Government have shown great courage in supporting some of Mr. MacGregor's courageous decisions, there are still some painful decisions to be made? Does he agree that the deferment of a decision on Ravenscraig—for that is what it was—means that there is an even heavier reckoning to come?

Mr. Lamont: It is correct to say that some painful decisions have been taken. I have no doubt that, unless the world-wide outlook for steel improves, painful decisions lie ahead in the longer term. However, we have taken painful decisions. Manpower has been reduced from 186,000 to 90,000. Installed capacity has been reduced from 26 million tonnes to 21 million tonnes and manned capacity is only 14 million tonnes. Although my hon. Friend's note of realism is correct, many tough decisions have been taken by the Government.

Mr. Crowther: Is the Minister aware that many departments of the special steels group in South Yorkshire have been run down and demanned to the point where they cannot possibly be profitable? Is that not deliberate policy as a preliminary to the privatisation of what remains of the corporation's special steels division at a figure far below the true market value?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. We wish to see a better position for the special steels sector, which is why we have pressed in Europe for an extension of EC arrangements on some special steels. We recognise the difficulties faced by the industry.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most important determinant of the prospects for the British Steel Corporation is the competitiveness of our major steel-using industries, such as motor cars, shipbuilding and machine tools? Does he further agree that to try to build a future for the steel industry without considering the competitiveness of those industries is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the chairman of the corporation has said that it is wrong to believe that the problem of the British steel industry is imports. The problems of the British steel industry are high costs, lack of competitiveness and a decade of high inflation. Those problems have destroyed British industry, especially the steel-using industries. Until we become more competitive, the demand for steel will be low.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that since the Secretary of State made his statement on steel in late December, several hundred more jobs have been lost in Scotland and 600 in Hartlepool, which is one of the largest areas of unemployment in the United Kingdom? When will such bleeding of the industry stop? As my hon. Friends have said, if we do not stop it we shall not have a viable industry. I support the demand by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) for an early statement about the Concast plant at Llanwern. Such a statement must be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Lamont: I have already said that the management of the British Steel Corporation has not yet put a proposition to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps reflecting the views of the local management rather than of the corporation. We have always made it clear that manning at individual plants is a matter for the corporation, notwithstanding the Government's involvement in the decision on the five major integrated sites.

West Midlands

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he now expects an improvement in the industrial position in the west midlands; and what increase in industrial activity is to be expected.

Mr. Lamont: There are no official forecasts relating solely to the west midlands, but Industry Act forecasts predict a rise of about 1·5 per cent. in United Kingdom output in 1983, which will benefit the economy of the region.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that at least 1,000 jobs a week are being lost in the west midlands and that unemployment in that region has been rising faster than in


any other part of Britain? When will we see an industrial revival and recovery in the west midlands instead of constant redundancies, closures and the return of mass unemploymentf?

Mr. Lamont: I agree that industry in the west midlands is in a difficult position. The Treasury forecast is that total output this year will increase by 1·5 per cent., which will obviously benefit the west midlands. The introduction of the small firms engineering scheme has benefited the west midlands by £6 million. Much of the aid that has gone to British Leyland, Rolls-Royce and the aerospace industry has benefited the west midlands. However, I recognise that the area faces difficult problems.

Mr. Stokes: Despite the measures taken by my right hon. Friend's Department, will further help be given to those who start new businesses, which are urgently required to replace older industries, in that area? Is my hon. Friend aware that bank lending is still limited and that interest rates are still quite high?

Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, a wide range of measures are available for the start-up of new industries and to help existing small businesses. Further decisions will no doubt be considered, but I must not anticipate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor may do in his Budget.

Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Minister forgotten that one of his hon. Friends told us that the west midlands would see the results of the Government's policies by the end of 1979? Is he pleased with the results?

Mr. Lamont: The west midlands will benefit as British industry becomes more competitive. The motor industry and the steel-using industries will benefit most from our policies to reduce inflation.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend consider the need for industry in the west midlands to become more competitive, and the means to help it to become more competitive, by removing discrimination against it in trade inside and outside this country? Will he further consider the need to give the west midlands a better technological base, with research and training facilities?

Mr. Lamont: I understand precisely what my hon. Friend is getting at. We have made several changes in regional policy which benefit the west midlands by removing discrimination against it. My hon. Friend will have noticed the references made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a review of regional policy.
I know that my hon. Friend is extremely oncerned about Spain. He knows that we regard the present position as grossly unfair, stemming as it does from an archaic agreement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we expect changes in the situation, and the Commission has made a fresh approach in this connection.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month in 1979.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: In the three months August to October 1982 the index of production for manufacturing industry was 88·3, compared with 101·9 in the same three months in 1979.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that output in manufacturing industry will rise only when the demand for its output is increased? To what extent does he expect demand for manufactured goods to increase as a result of the recent welcome change in the exchange rate of sterling?

Mr. Baker: The recent sharp drop in the value of sterling—it has dropped against the deutschmark and the French franc by about 12 per cent. in 10 weeks and by about 19 per cent. against the yen—will improve the competitive position of many British manufacturing firms that export. They must now make the most of this change in the value of sterling.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In the light of the Minister's reply and the fact that 2 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry in recent years, are not the Government showing scandalous complacency about manufacturing industry? Is the Minister satisfied that for the first time since the industrial revolution we are importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates. Throughout the Western world the share of each economy's output that is devoted to manufacturing is declining in terms of employment. In my view, that will continue for some time to come and it would be quite unrealistic for any Minister not to agree with that. We have many measures, in the Science and Technology Act and in the Industry Act, to support and encourage British manufacturing industry.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend say whether there is a section in his Department that keeps a close watch on our existing manufacturing enterprises being transferred to other nations by appallingly high subsidies, which appear to be in breach of almost every international agreement? Will he look, in particular, at the remarkable case of the transfer of Timex operations from Dundee to France and find out whether the subsidy offered is in breach of the rules, as appears to be the case? Will he consider having a section to watch this matter carefully?

Mr. Baker: We monitor changes of that nature, particularly dramatic ones such as the one my hon. Friend mentions. I have already asked for an inquiry to be put in hand into the nature of the incentives that were offered to part of the Timex company's operations to set up a manufacturing unit in France. If the incentives exceed those that are approved in the Common Market, we shall make the strongest possible protest.

Mr. Jay: Do the Government welcome the recent fall in the exchange value of sterling?

Mr. Baker: There is to be a debate on Wednesday, when the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor will speak. I should like to make clear that the adjustment—

Mr. James Lamond: Adjustment?

Mr. Baker: —in the value of sterling creates for British companies that are exporting an opportunity to


export more. To that extent, the adjustment in the value of sterling will benefit British companies that are involved in the export of goods.

Steel Castings

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Industry to what extent heavy manufacturing industry uses steel castings made in the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): In 1981 heavy manufacturing industry used 116,046 tonnes of steel castings from United Kingdom foundries, equivalent to 95 per cent. of its total requirements.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister guarantee that that will be maintained in the next 18 months to two years, because many manufacturing firms in Stockport would like to buy British but find it extremely difficult to do so? Many of those firms are extremely worried that, because of the present Government's attitude to the British Steel Corporation, it will be increasingly difficult to buy British in the future.

Mr. Butcher: Currently, the steel casting industry is working at about 60 per cent. of its capacity. I should also point out that we exported about 30,000 tonnes of goods in this connection, and imported only 5,000 tonnes. The industry is coming together on rationalisation schemes, and that is very much in line with the decisions that it is making.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Will my hon. Friend say how the rationalisation scheme promoted by Lazards is progressing and to what extent it will retain capacity to manufacture heavy castings, which were once a main feature of Sheffield industry?

Mr. Butcher: It would be premature to disclose the present position on the scheme that Lazards is operating. However, I can say that funds of about £800,000 have been allocated out of the total of £7·8 million that we envisage for the scheme. I shall keep my hon. Friend informed of developments that affect Sheffield.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the steel casting and steel rolling industry be more protected if the Government were to reject the minority Goldstein document to the Serpell report, that suggests that the British Steel Corporation should import track products and other products relating to the uses of British Rail? Does the Minister believe that that will have a major bearing on future working in the steel industry in my constituency, as it will in the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he reject Goldstein totally out of hand, because he was not bright enough to address himself to the real issues in the steel industry and, secondly, because his fee was fat and too large?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary question was much too long.

Mr. Butcher: Tempting as it is, it would not be wise to discuss the minority report to the Serpell report. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

British Aerospace

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Aerospace; and whether the future work programme was discussed.

Mr. Butcher: I and my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence have regular contact with the chairman of British Aerospace. The future work programme has been among the topics discussed with him.

Mr. Atkinson: How much longer is the Minister prepared to lie back and allow British Aerospace to be sabotaged by the fictitious accountancy that is now distorting prices so much that the chances of the BAC 146 succeeding are quite remote? When will the Minister write off at least £200 million of the development costs which rightly belong to his colleagues who are answerable for defence charges? Is that not the way to proceed and thus give a chance to British Aerospace?

Mr. Butcher: I reject the hon. Gentleman's accusation about fictitious accountancy. I shall refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. McNally: Does the Minister agree that aerospace, more than most industries, needs to collaborate and work closely with the Government of the day? Does he further agree that, with the developments in the agile combat aircraft, the airbus, the variants of the Coastguarder and the medium-range turbo aircraft for Europe, British Aerospace and its workers have fulfilled their share of the bargain, and that there now needs to be a sense of urgency on the part of the Government to give the aerospace industry a long-term perspective and a chance to compete with the Americans?

Mr. Butcher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the workers of British Aerospace should be congratulated on their recent record. They have increased productivity, and they have done their best to meet the objectives that the management set for them. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that there are a number of areas in the aerospace industry where close co-operation with the Ministry of Defence and, on occasion, with the Department of Industry, is necessary. We have honoured our commitments, going back to 1978, on a rate of return of 5 per cent. I believe that we have also been consistent on launch aid. We recognise that there are occasions when special measures are required.

Mr. Richard Page: Following the failure of the Arianne launch in September 1982, and with it, sadly, the British Aerospace Marecs B satellite, for which we are the prime contractors, can my hon. Friend say when its replacement will be launched? Will my hon. Friend confirm that British Aerospace is doing a magnificent job for satellites in Britain?

Mr. Butcher: The French have a problem to resolve, but we are hoping that it will be in the spring of this year.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate British Aerospace and other leading contractors on the British satellite aspects of this programme for choosing that part of the programme that has the best commercial rate of return.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister is congratulating the work force of British Aerospace, but is he aware that it is now


faced with considerable redundancies? I am particularly thinking of British Aerospace at Manchester, which is deeply involved in the civil airline projects. Would it be useful for the Minister seriously to consider creating some kind of window whereby British Aerospace could purchase one or two 146 planes to help the industry during this difficult period?

Mr. Butcher: It would be unwise to make statements from the Dispatch Box on forward-order decisions. I agree that in recent years some parts of British Aerospace's productive capacity have been under great pressure. I know, as will the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), that one of the sites that has been affected is Bitteswell. I fully understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Manchester. Blackley (Mr. Eastham). However, I do not think that he will expect me to give such a commitment this afternoon.

Dr. John Cunningham: As British Aerospace is the major producer of high technology, high added-value products for which there is world demand, as it has had acknowledged successes and has the prospect of more exports, in particular the A320 airbus and the agile combat aircraft, why are the Government dragging their feet on launching aid, particularly when it is well known that many jobs are now threatened in the industry, which should be expanding?

Mr. Butcher: The Government are not dragging their feet on launch aid for the airbus. Britain's position is similar to that of the Germans. The French have allocated money in advance from public sector funds, but Britain and Germany are waiting to be satisfied that the project will provide a proper commercial rate of return. Britain, through the Ministry of Defence, is discussing collaboration on the agile combat aircraft with the German and Italian air forces.

Companies (Equity Purchases)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what advice and assistance are available from his Department for managers purchasing the equity of a company which previously employed them.

Mr. MacGregor: My Department does not provide any advice or assistance specific to these management buy-outs. However, companies being set up in this way can apply where appropriate for assistance under the various schemes operated by the Department provided that they satisfy the standard criteria. Managers can also obtain advice and information from the Department's small firms centres.

Mr. Eggar: Has my hon. Friend noted the truly excellent results of the National Freight Corporation? Is he aware that the only regret of its employees in my constituency and elsewhere about the change of ownership is that some of them did not buy as many shares as they might have done? Will my hon. Friend assure Conservative Members that he is giving every encouragement to management within nationalised industries to buy out parts of those industries?

Mr. MacGregor: I have indeed noted the encouraging first 32 weeks' results of the National Freight Corporation. In a sense, that was a staff buy-out rather than a purely management buy-out, and it is one of the most noticeable

in the recent trends. My hon. Friend will know that, from small beginnings only a few years ago, many management buy-outs are now taking place with many advantages, not the least of which is to preserve viable units which are much better outside the nationalised sector when the employees and the management have a positive stake in the operation. He will know that changes in the Companies Acts and fiscal legislation have made it easier to achieve such buy-outs, which we shall always encourage where appropriate.

Mr. John Garrett: If the Minister is so keen on management buy-outs, why is he not more keen on helping co-operatives to set up and develop? Why has he cut the funding available for the Co-operative Development Agency and made so little public money available for the setting up of that particularly important type of small business?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman should realise that there are various ways in which economic activity can take place. The management buy-out is extremely important and it has produced many excellent results in recent years. Under the Government the management buy-out approach has started to take off. We had a full debate on the funding of the Co-operative Development Agency and there was a wide welcome for the new remit that I gave it, the results of which have been encouraging.

East Midlands

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to improve the industrial position of the east midlands; and what increase in activity he expects thereby.

Mr. MacGregor: In a difficult world-wide economic climate our policies are helping industry in the east midlands and elsewhere by reducing inflation, acting on industrial costs which are outside the control of industry and encouraging innovation and the use of new technology. Appropriate areas of the east midlands also receive assistance through assisted area and enterprise zone status, derelict land clearance designation and inner city policy. Between 1982 and 1983 total output in the economy is expected to increase by 1½ per cent.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that managements and work forces in the east midlands regard the Government's efforts to help them as puny and useless? The devasting decline in industrial production in this once so prosperous area is continuing, not least in the city of Leicester, with awful effects on employment. When will the Government produce something other than the sort of platitudes that the Minister has just placed before the House?

Mr. MacGregor: The Government have produced a great deal more than platitudes. I mentioned specific areas of assistance. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that since May 1979, under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972 and the support for innovation schemes, nearly £38 million has gone to assist the east midlands. I strongly question the initial general remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I find wide support in industry for the Government's main strategy of reducing inflation and other industrial costs.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that in reality industry in the east midlands welcomes many of


the Government's measures, especially the reduction of inflation, the cut in the national insurance surcharge and the many measures to help small businesses? Is he also aware that in a recession industry cannot cope with increased public sector costs? Therefore, will he impress upon nationalised industries and other public sector enterprises that they simply must not raise their prices this year?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that that is the response of many in industry. As my hon. Friend will know, unemployment in the east midlands is below the national average as a result of the efforts that have been made by industries and their work forces.
My hon. Friend will also know that, as a result of the success in solving some of the nationalised industries' problems, there will be a standstill on both gas and electricity prices this year. That is widely welcomed by industry.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory reply to my question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

British Leyland

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will place an edited copy of BL's corporate plan for 1983 in the Library.

Mr. Spellar: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has now received the new corporate plan for BL; and if he will present it to the House.

Mr. Butcher: British Leyland's 1983 corporate plan is at present being studied and the Government's decision will be announced in due course. At that time I expect to be able to make available to the House a report by British Leyland on its recent performance and details of the corporate plan.

Mr. Miller: In view of the widespread concern at reports that British Leyland is proposing to get 30 per cent. of its components from abroad, will the Minister tell the House whether he has had any discussions with either British Leyland or the component industry? Is he satisfied that our component makers are unable to meet BL's requirements? If so, will he consider a scheme to ensure that they can produce satisfactory components?

Mr. Butcher: That is understandably an issue of some controversy in the west midlands. British Leyland has taken a tough stance with the component suppliers, because it has been charged with breaking even at the earliest possible opportunity. I am delighted to say that the signs are that it will do so in 1983. Having said that, we should encourage component suppliers, not just in the west midlands, but elsewhere, to approach the Department of Industry to see whether there are any ways in which the Department's various schemes can help them to reduce their costs to produce components at a price that meets British Leyland's demands.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that his reply does nothing to reassure either management or workers in the west midlands? The long period over which they have had the corporate plan for British Leyland has given rise to considerable uncertainty, not only on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr.

Miller) but on British Leyland's structure. The time that is being taken is having a major effect on the work force and the structure of British Leyland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking up all the time available. I was hoping to call two more questions.

Mr. Spellar: When will the Minister make a statement about the projected break-up of British Leyland? When will he make an official statement, rather than issuing a statement abroad, about the Honda link?

Mr. Butcher: There is no question at this stage of a projected break-up of BL. It is charged with breaking even, and hopes to do so in 1983. It is also charged with making profits and introducing private sector capital at the earliest possible opportunity.
The news is not all bad. The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should know that the increase in productivity at Longbridge has been especially spectacular and that Cowley is improving dramatically, with another 1,000 jobs being created there. Jaguar is doing excellent work in both quality and volume. We are confident that the new style of management at BL will continue and that the job prospects of its workers will be enhanced.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Legal Aid

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied with the working of the legal aid scheme.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): The Lord Chancellor is continually taking steps to improve the working of the three schemes for which he is responsible.

Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the discrepancies in granting legal aid to defendants charged with indictable offences in magistrates' courts? Is he further aware that the discrepancies may be two or three times greater in one court than in another? Will he suggest ways in which such unfairness to defendents can be dealt with, possibly by a system of appeal against refusal to grant legal aid?

The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I are aware of that problem, and share the hon. Gentleman's concern. The Lord Chancellor is anxious to promote consistency of approach towards legal aid in magistrates' courts. To that end he is pursuing two separate lines of action. His officials recently carried out a survey of about 60 courts and the information ascertained is being analysed. In addition, the power included in the Legal Aid Act 1982 to introduce a power of recourse after a refusal is under active consideration. There are several alternatives. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a final decision will not be long delayed, but will not be taken before consultation is complete.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the legal aid scheme vastly expensive, and becoming more so every day? Is it not liable to abuse? Will my right hon. and learned Friend order a thorough inquiry into the whole scheme?

The Solicitor-General: I can put my hon. Friend's concern at rest. The main purpose of the 1982 Act was to


ensure more economy, better contributions where they could be afforded and generally to seek more consistency and less abuse.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Solicitor-General urge the magistrates' courts rules committee to go ahead with drawing up appropriate rules so that the provision of legal aid for parents in care proceedings—which was announced by the Lord Chancellor in July last year—can be put into effect as soon as possible?

The Solicitor-General: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that matter is also the subject of active consideration. We must get it right before regulations are made, but preparations have reached an advanced stage.

Prosecution Policy

Mr. Meacher: asked the Attorney-General if he will make it his practice to seek from the Director of Public Prosecutions the reasons why, in answer to complaints referred to him, he concludes that the evidence is insufficient to take proceedings.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): No, Sir.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, following what has become known as the Burngreave incident in Sheffield, five youths who made a complaint against the police for assault were told by the Director of Public Prosecutions—as always—that there was insufficient evidence to take proceedings? Is he further aware that film taken of the incident showed that the police evidence was untrue and, in subsequent legal proceedings, the youths were awarded £2,000 plus costs in compensation? Do not such cases invite cynicism? In the absence of the discipline of having to provide reasons for rejecting complaints—on request, even if not automatically—even such cut and dried cases will never receive a fair hearing from the DPP. Will there not continue to be a yawning credibility gap among the public about the complaints procedure?

The Attorney-General: The question was whether the DPP should refer to me the cases that he had turned down. About 14,000 cases a year are referred to him. It would be impossible for me to consider each one. In cases about which he has some doubt or where he experiences difficulty, he consults me.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is absolutely fundamental that the DPP—whoever holds that office—should be largely independent of the Executive or any pressure group if we are to live in the sort of democracy that we currently enjoy?

The Attorney-General: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knighthood.
It is absolutely essential that the office of Director of Public Prosecutions remains free from any pressure from the Executive. Although I have the right of superintendence over him, during the three and a half years that I have held this office I have never had to tell him to do anything. We have always reached agreement about the proper course to be adopted.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee has twice unanimously

recommended that the DPP should give his reasons for refusing to proceed against police officers, is it not time that he and the Attorney-General seriously considered whether they may be wrong in their present attitude?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter has been considered at great length. We believe that we have reached the proper result, especially in view of the circular issued on 4 January.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is that if the DPP was obliged to state his reasons they may amount to no more than that the witnesses were not credible? It would be hard to make that statement, and could be damaging to witnesses.

The Attorney-General: That is certainly one reason for the present policy. Another is that there is often a public retrial of someone who would not have the protection of the courts. Thirdly, in a number of cases witnesses come forward to give their evidence in confidence. If they thought that that evidence would be disclosed outside a court of law, they would be reluctant to come forward.

Prosecutions

Mr. Canavan: asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has conducted personally since May 1979.

The Attorney-General: Six. I am also expecting to conduct the prosecution in a seventh case tomorrow.

Mr. Canavan: Because of the reluctance of the DPP to prosecute policemen, will the Attorney-General himself prosecute those responsible for the incident last Friday when the police gunned down an innocent man in the street? If Sir Kenneth Newman is responsible for the regulations governing the use of firearms by members of his force, should not he be one of the policemen in the dock?

The Attorney-General: The papers relating to that case are being sent to the DPP tomorrow morning, as a preliminary report. He will consider them, and if he has any difficulty he will no doubt consult me.

Mr. Aitken: At the risk of causing my right hon. and learned Friend to blush, may I ask whether he is aware that those who heard his devastatingly effective cross-examination of the spy Professor Hambleton hope that he will prosecute in many important national cases,?

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. However, I cannot claim credit in many cases as the defendants pleaded guilty.

Tape Recorders

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Attorney-General on how many occasions tape recorders have been allowed to be used in judicial proceedings since the coming into force of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; and on how many occasions their use has been forbidden.

The Attorney-General: No records are kept of the number of occasions on which the use of tape recorders has been allowed or refused by the courts.

Mr. Price: Does not the Attorney-General think that he should keep records on such an important issue? As it looks as if the House of Lords Judicial Committee will soon be considering another transport case that is to be brought in London, and as it refused to let me bring a tape recorder into its court last time, will the Attorney-General have a word with Lord Wilberforce and get him to change his mind?

The Attorney-General: There has been only one complaint since the Bill became an Act. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he discussed them with me first, sympathetic guidelines have been issued. However, if he is dissatisfied with a court's refusal to grant him, or anyone else, the right to bring in a tape recorder, he should bear in mind that the proper person to speak to is not me, but my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for 18, 19, and 20 January has now been rearranged as follows:
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY—Opposition Day (4th Allotted Day)—There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the economic crisis. Motions on the Welsh Rate Support Grant 1980 (Supplementary) (No. 2) Report 1982 and the (Amendment) Report: on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1982 (Supplementary) Report 1982 and (Amendment) Report, and on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1983–84.
THURSDAY 20 JANUARY—Motions On the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1982–83 and on the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1983–84.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I hesitate to raise this issue with the Lord President of the Council, but, given the intense press speculation about the contents of the Franks report, and as there may be a statement on that tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how hon. Members can catch sight of the report so that their questions are succinct and pertinent?

Mr. Biffen: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Shooting Incident (Kensington)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): On the evening of Friday 14 January, officers of the Metropolitan Police, charged with the pursuit and recapture of an escaped suspect, shot and seriously injured Mr. Stephen Waldorf. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has already made it clear that this shooting arose from mistaken identity and has expressed his deep regret at what occurred. I am sure that the House will agree with me that this was a most serious, grave and disturbing incident. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Nothing like it must happen again. I am equally sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy to Mr. Waldorf and his family and our hope for his rapid and complete recovery from his injuries.
The House will expect a full investigation into what has occurred, and a full report on the outcome. Immediately after the incident the Commissioner set up such an inquiry. He has reported progress to me personally this morning. As the House knows, three officers have been suspended from duty. A report will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the question of criminal liability. The Commissioner told me this morning that an initial report would go to the Director tomorrow. What I have said about the possibility of criminal proceedings limits at present what I can properly say about the details of the incident itself.
The often dangerous duties of the police require them on specific occasions to carry firearms. The Metropolitan Police rules governing the issue and use of firearms are rightly stringent and explicit. I am placing the relevant extracts from the current rules in the Library of the House. The rules say:
Every officer to whom a weapon is issued must be strictly warned that it is to be used only in cases of absolute necessity, for example, if he, or the person he is protecting is attacked by a person with a firearm or other deadly weapon and he cannot otherwise reasonably protect himself or give protection, he may resort to firearms as a means of defence.
The rules also state that weapons are issued only to those who are authorised to have them, and under the direct and personal supervision of an officer not below the rank of inspector. The responsible chief superintendent has to be informed of their issue as soon as practicable. The rules emphasise that in planned operations where the issue of firearms is deemed necessary, the use of such weapons will be strictly controlled by the supervising officer in charge of the operation.
There will, of course, be a thorough examination of these rules in order to take account of the lessons to be learnt from Friday's incident.
Firearms were issued to Metropolitan Police officers in operations against criminals known or believed to be armed on 4,346 occasions in the first nine months of 1982. The comparable figures for the whole of 1981 and 1980 respectively were 4,983 and 5,968. Firearms were drawn from holsters in those three years on 73, 106 and 118 occasions respectively. Twenty-eight shots were fired in six incidents in 1980; six shots in two incidents in 1981, and four in three incidents last year. The figures for persons injured were two, nought, and one respectively.
That is all I can say at present to the House. The Commissioner has assured me that, whatever the outcome


of any legal proceedings, he recognises that the House and the public are entitled to have available to them the full facts of this incident. I fully endorse that and will keep the House informed.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first offer the Opposition's sympathy to Mr. Waldorf and his family? May I then ask the Home Secretary to understand that the nation-wide concern that has been expressed about last Friday's tragedy involves not simply the shooting of one innocent man but the practices and procedures that made that tragedy possible? I therefore ask the Home Secretary to understand that the House, like the country, expects an inquiry into the regulations governing the issue of firearms to police officers and the criteria against which their use is measured. In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the regulations never allow the police to open fire on targets who are not palpably offering a threat to the life and safety of either police officers or the general public?
Is it not the generally accepted practice—and, if I have correctly understood the rules that the Home Secretary has read out, the formal regulation—that before the police open fire they must be convinced of the absolute necessity to do so and must, wherever possible, warn the target of their intention to open fire?
May I ask the Home Secretary two questions that clearly underlie the inquiry that was announced during the weekend? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is wholly unsatisfactory for the investigation of this incident to be carried out by the police force which is itself being investigated, and that that is particularly so when that police force has spent much of the weekend briefing newspapers about the causes of the incident and in part attempting to justify it? Will the right hon. Gentleman, even now, consider appointing an independent individual who commands the general respect and confidence of this country to carry out what will be seen as an objective and open-minded inquiry?
Since the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, a role which he is determined to maintain despite the increasing pressure for the constitution of the police force to be changed, will he understand that the House expects not only a report into how this tragic incident came about but an understanding from him that he must tell us how he, as police authority, proposes to remedy the problems that allowed it to happen in the first place?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's final point is that I accept the challenge and will do exactly that.
With regard to investigations, it must be right—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree—for the legal problem to be examined in the first instance. That is why I have ensured that a preliminary report will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions as early as tomorrow morning. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that that is important, quick and perfectly correct. It must, in the first instance, be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to examine the report, to get the full report and to decide if and whether legal proceedings should take place. That must be the first task. As for the next and subsequent matters, I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I have read the regulations to the House, and I believe they cover the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made—[Interruption.] I was asked a perfectly proper question about the regulations. I am entitled to say what the regulations are. If, of course, they have not been complied with, that may well be a matter for either legal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings.
I should like to make one other point to the right hon. Gentleman. It is part of firearms training that warnings should be given whenever practicable. That is also crucial.

Mr. Hattersley: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on a point on which I believe he and I have the same view—the need to re-establish and maintain confidence? He said that a report goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he did not say what is generally known in the House and in the country, which is that the report is prepared by the police force into which the investigation is being made. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, even in terms of maintaining confidence and understanding, it would be infinitely better if the immediate investigation was made either by another police force or by an objective organisation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that, in the first instance, what I have said must be correct and is what has always happened in the past, but I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that two main questions must be answered by any inquiry into this appalling accident? First, is the combination of circumstances that led to this mistake ever likely to arise again? If it is, what improvements in the procedure and safeguards for the carrying and use of guns by the police will be introduced as a matter of urgency to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have said, and I repeat, first, that I believe that the existing rules are stringent and explicit. I have also said that in the light of the reports that will certainly come and should be examined extremely rigorously I should expect to come before the House if it were proved that we had to revise the regulations in any way.

Mr. William Pitt: First, I should like to associate myself and my right hon. Friends in the Liberal Party with the remarks of sympathy expressed by the Home Secretary and by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to the family of Mr. Stephen Waldorf. We sincerely hope that Mr. Waldorf will make a complete recovery as quickly as possible.
May I point out—I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree—that a person who was offering no—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members want to ask questions. I should like to call many of them, and I hope that those who are called will ask questions addressed to the statement.

Mr. Pitt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
In the event of the Director of Public Prosecutions finding that there is a prima facie case against the police officers about whom the report is being submitted, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the double jeopardy rule will not apply and that these men will be brought to justice?

Mr. Whitelaw: In the first instance, that must be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I cannot go further than that now.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like particularly to welcome the phrase in my right hon. Friend's very full statement that:
Nothing like it must happen again.
If that is to be achieved, is it not unsatisfactory to concentrate solely on imposing stricter controls on the use of firearms by the police? Is it not equally necessary—indeed, more necessary—to increase the effective deterrent to the carrying of firearms and their use by criminals?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is that I accept that it is extremely important that the position of police officers when dealing with violent crime in our society today should be properly recognised. I believe that all hon. Members would accept that.
I know my hon. Friend's views on deterrents to crime. He has put them to the House on the issue of capital punishment as a deterrent. He did not convince the House on the last occasion, but, of course, that is a matter individually for every hon. Member. I maintain that the deterrents, apart from that particular issue, for those carrying firearms and weapons are already extremely stringent, and I hope that they will be strenuously enforced.

Mr. Christopher Price: Before this incident, when was the whole issue of firearms, about which parliamentary questions have been asked, last discussed by the Home Secretary or his Ministers and the Commissioner? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioner to conduct a thorough inquiry into the press briefing, which went on over the weekend, in which the implication was made that though the Metropolitan Police were quite happy to apologise for shooting the wrong man, they might not have done so if it had been, in their terms, the right man?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has placed a construction on the Metropolitan Police briefing, or what he says was the Metropolitan Police briefing. If that was the effect of the briefing, I would not accept it.
The question must, of course, be whether firearms were properly used in any particular case. I have discussed that on many occasions with the previous Commissioner. I have not discussed it with the present Commissioner since his appointment, but I have already received a report from him about his plans on policing for London. The issue of firearms was one matter which I was determined to raise with him, irrespective of last Friday's incident.

Mr. George Cunningham: After this terrible incident, will the Home Secretary and the Home Office take more seriously their role as the police authority for London? Will the Home Secretary give a categoric answer to two factual questions? First, in accordance with the rules that he has just quoted, was the inspector in charge of this operation on the spot? Secondly, are the rules that he has quoted those in the category made by the Commissioner and notified to the Home Secretary, or in the category made by the Commissioner on his own authority? Are they made by the Home Secretary or by the Commissioner?

Mr. Whitelaw: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I take the duties of the Home Secretary's job

as police authority for the metropolis extremely seriously. Indeed, in view of some of the many incidents that have happened to me over the past few years, if I did not take them seriously I should be a remarkable person. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I most certainly do.
If I were to go into the details of particular officers involved in this incident I should stray into the field that I must not discuss because of prospective legal proceedings. Secondly, the rules are those set out by the Commissioner, who is operationally responsible, but, of course, as police authority I accept the rules that are put to me—just as police authorities all over the country accept the rules that are put to them. I consider them and can change them if I wish. I have not so wished on this occasion.

Mr. John Wheeler: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Commissioner has handled the inquiry and investigation absolutely correctly in every degree and that the correct procedure for the Commissioner is to forward a full and frank report to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Can my right hon. Friend also confirm that under English law only the minimum force should be used to effect an arrest and that violence should be used only when the life of the arresting officer or a citizen is put in jeopardy?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I should expect, my hon. Friend has correctly stated the position. I believe that the speed with which the Commissioner has acted, in particular in preparing to send an initial report to the Director of Public Prosecutions tomorrow morning—in probably an unprecedented short time—is what the House and the country would expect of him.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does the Home Secretary agree that, to be effective, the police need the support and confidence of the public? Does he further agree that they will retain neither if they give the impression, as they did on Friday evening, that they are acting in an undisciplined fashion or that they are taking the law into their own hands and acting as judge, jury and executioner, particularly since the bullet that did the major damage was fired when the man was already disabled and on the ground?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong for me to comment on the hon. Gentleman's last point, because of the possibility of legal proceedings. It involves something that has been printed in the press, but which I can neither confirm nor deny. The figures that I have given for the number of times that firearms were drawn and the number of shots fired in recent years and on the minimal number of people injured show that talk of gun law is wholly inappropriate. Of course I accept that it is vital that the police retain the public's confidence. Despite all the anxiety created by the incident, I maintain that the figures justify that confidence, and we must ensure that it is maintained.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no such incident has occurred in the lifetime of most hon. Members? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that we are grateful to him for the speedy way in which he has acted? When were the Metropolitan Police rules last reviewed and in what form were they made known to us?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. The rules are constantly reviewed. All officers are instructed in them during the considerable training that they receive before they are allowed to use firearms.

Mr. Ben Ford: Is the Home Secretary aware that for many years responsible shooting organisations have urged his Department to form with them a joint standing committee to advise him on police weapon training and types of weapons to be used, among other things? Is it not now appropriate to reassure the public by setting up such a committee, so that the most expert advice is available to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly consider that request.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Home Secretary accept that there must be some sympathy for the police in the circumstantial chain of accidents that led up to this dreadful incident? Does he agree that by no stretch of the imagination could the people in that car be termed ordinary members of the public, because at least two of them were tainted with criminality? [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful. Withdraw."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the circumstances that led up to the mistaken identity were understandable? Is there not a wider issue—that as the retributive element in the penal code diminishes and more and more criminals carry firearms, such incidents will proliferate?

Mr. Whitelaw: Having properly refused, in advance of consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions, to comment on the incident, I should be wrong to do so now. Of course it is true that when people are using firearms and violence is created we place considerable responsibilities on our police force. That must be understood. I believe that the figures that I have quoted show that in the main they are absolutely up to those responsibilities. If mistakes are made, it is right that they should be examined and ruthlessly dealt with, as the Commissioner has promised.

Mr. Michael Meacher: In the light of this and other incidents, will the Home Secretary undertake to publish in full the guidelines controlling the use of firearms by the police, not just the relevant extracts?

Mr. Whitelaw: I promised to publish the relevant extracts of the Metropolitan Police rules, and I have done that. I shall examine the question of publishing Home Office guidelines to other police forces. I have said what I thought I should do—publish the extract from the Metropolitan Police rules, as the problem relates to the Metropolitan Police force on this occasion.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the report is to be made to the DPP tomorrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the DPP decides that there is no case for criminal prosecution, that will not clear up the matter? Whereas normally the reasons for no prosecution taking place are not given, in this instance would not the House want a report, either direct from the DPP or from some other source, so that there can be no question of the issue being whitewashed by the Commissioner and the DPP?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can give the House an absolute assurance in answer to my hon. Friend. I guarantee that everything that I have said this afternoon and every action that I shall take will involve no cover up and no whitewash, in any circumstances.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the most reprehensible aspect of Friday's incident the fact that it appears that the police went out intent, not on detaining a suspect, but on killing him?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be quite improper for me to comment on the hon. Gentleman's assertion when legal proceedings may be pending.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only fair, on an occasion when the police have admitted a regrettable and tragic error, that we should bear in mind the majority of times when they get it absolutely right? In the light of the deep public concern and the growth in violent crime, is it not of the utmost importance that we should remind the police that they continue to enjoy public support for the proper and careful exercise of their powers?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that many police successes that are well known to the House and the country go comparatively unreported. No one in public life should be surprised at that. However, there are failures. When there are failures, and serious failures, they should be ruthlessly examined. The vast majority of police officers would expect that to happen. That is what will happen in this case.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Home Secretary remind the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) that not even a criminal caught in the act should be shot unless the guidelines which the right hon. Gentleman has read out have been observed and that the criminality, or near criminality, of the car's occupants has no relevance to the proceedings? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures that he quoted show that there is a huge disparity between the issuing of firearms and the times when it was necessary to use them? Does he agree that that shows a laxity in issuing firearms which should be considered by the proper authority? Does not the incident show that we have to re-establish proper control of the police through publicly elected police authorities?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must not comment on details of the incident. It would be proper to argue that the figures that I quoted show a marked reluctance by the police to use their weapons even when they must have them as a precaution. It is reasonable that I should point that out. The question of who controls the police in London will continue to be argued, but I do not believe that that is central to the issue that we are discussing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side of the House and then to move on.

Mr. Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend referred to the training of police in the use of small arms. Against the background of last Friday's incident does he agree that there is an urgent need to review that training and to introduce experts from outside who really know how to go about that type of operation?

Mr. Whitelaw: Police training in the use of firearms has been carried out extremely well. The police have many experts in their use. Some of the figures that I have given demonstrate how careful the police have been in the use of firearms as a result of that training. If they can learn more from outside, I am happy for that to be considered.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Home Secretary reconsider the answers that he has given and agree that the conditions under which guns are issued to the police and the conditions under which they are used are utterly unsatisfactory? Does he further agree that a large proportion of the 4,000 cases to which he has referred are ones when the police break and enter the homes of innocent people during the early hours of the morning and at gun point threaten constituents to get out of bed and have their homes searched? Does he agree that that is an abuse of police powers? Is he aware that every constituency in London that is represented by a Labour Member of Parliament has provided examples of incidents where police have entered constituents' homes and that they have been reported to the Home Secretary? Is he aware that they have been searched and threatened at gun point? Does the Home Secretary agree that it is time for him to tell the House that he will have the guts to stand up to the police and say that there will be no more gun law from them?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has decided to indulge himself in many assertions which I do not for a moment accept.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incident should not be used as an opportunity by Opposition Members to develop a vendetta against the police? Nevertheless, does he agree that there is substantial alarm, not only at the fact that the wrong man was hit but that implicit in the case is the possibility that the police might be allowed, in certain circumstances, to discharge their firearms in a public place that is busy with people' going about their ordinary business? Does he further agree that this is an important occasion for him and the Commissioner to consider whether the guidelines, when reviewed, should contain more positive directions on the subject? Does he agree that that would reassure the public?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it clear, as the House would expect, that the first step is to have the incident examined, from the legal point of view, by the Director of Public Prosecutions. There will be other lessons to learn from any subsequent reports. They will be examined in the context of what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Mr. John Tilley: Is the Home Secretary aware that the injured man worked in Lambeth and that the question now being asked in Lambeth and, indeed, throughout London, is the one that the Home Secretary avoided earlier—how many of these tragedies

must take place before the citizens of London have the same rights as citizens in every other city in Britain? There should be a locally elected police authority, which will enable public scrutiny of the regulations as a matter of routine to avoid such tragedies, rather than the scrutiny that the Home Secretary is now allowing us after the event. If the Home Secretary still does not believe that that issue is central to this incident, and as he believes that he must be the police authority, accountable to Parliament, will he give an assurance that the report being prepared by Sir Kenneth Newman on the policing of London will be made public? Secondly, will he assure the House that the issue will be debated in the House before he agrees to any of the recommendations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I still maintain that the issue of who controls the police and whether there should be an elected authority is not central to what we are discussing today.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, of course I shall consider Sir Kenneth Newman's report and consider how best it might be presented to the House. If my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons is prepared to agree, I shall be only too happy to have a debate on the subject.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In spite of the appalling and inexcusable nature of this tragic case, is it not appropriate for my right hon. Friend to remind the citizens of London that they are better policed, better protected and less the victims of trigger-happy policemen than the citizens of any other major city in the world?

Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole House knows that that is true. I hope that the whole House will recognise that and reassure the Metropolitan Police accordingly today.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: In his statement, the Home Secretary made it clear that arms would be issued to the police only with the permission of a senior police officer. What is the rank of the police officer who agrees to issue arms to those members of the police force to use them in the type of circumstances that we are discussing?

Mr. Whitelaw: The general rules provide that only an inspector may allow the issue of firearms and that the issue must be reported immediately to a chief superintendent. It is not right for me to comment further on the present case.

Timex (Redundancies)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the employment and industrial implications of the Timex cutback in Dundee".
In the late afternoon of Friday 7 January a company called Nimslo, with which Timex had a contract for the development and manufacture of a 3D camera at Dundee, announced that the contract had been terminated. The announcement, which was made in London, was not communicated to the work force, although it meant the likely loss of 500 jobs. The manner of the announcement and the untrue and damaging remarks that were associated with it caused anger in Dundee, especially when it was learnt that the camera, which had largely been redesigned by Timex to make it a viable proposition, was to be produced in Japan.
The injury was compounded on Monday 10 January when Timex announced 1,900 redundancies which covered the watchmaking side of the business as well as that concerned with the loss of the Nimslo camera. Timex intended to retain 2,300 jobs in the city for work on computers and some remaining aspects of watch production, but as events developed it became clear that those jobs could also be at risk.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that under this type of application you must be satisfied on three counts. First, the application is specific. It refers to a crisis where 1,900 and possibly 4,200 jobs are in danger. It addresses itself to the employment and industrial implications that arise from the ease with which multinational companies can transfer business away from a factory without being accountable for their actions. A debate would allow the House to consider those implications against the background of the experience in Dundee which has found that it is relatively easy for another country—Japan—to pirate the 3D camera that has been developed in Dundee. It is also facing the

loss of other business to another Timex associated company—Besancon—which is heavily subsidised by the French Government.
Secondly, the subject is obviously important. The threat that faces Dundee is proportionately similar to the impact that the closure of British Leyland would have on the English midlands.
Thirdly, the matter is urgent. On Friday, 14 January the Secretary of State for Scotland held an emergency meeting in Edinburgh. He assured me that the Government would consider deeply a financial package that might help. However, newspaper reports that were published the following day gave the opposite impression of the Government's attitude. It is natural that the House cannot be party to negotiations that are carried out between management and trade unions, but it can impress on Ministers the need to emulate the French Government and ensure that Timex, Dundee and its employees do not fall victim to unfair competition and practices. A financial package could be an important element in securing a solution to avoid catastrophe.
I hope, therefore, that you, Mr. Speaker, will find it possible to allow the application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the employment and industrial implications of the Timex cutback in Dundee".
The House has listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said in submitting his application but he and the House know that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I do not decide whether a matter should be debated. The decision is taken by others. I merely decide whether there should be an emergency debate. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Metropolitan Police (Accountability)

Mr. William Pitt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the accountability of the police in the Metropolitan police district".
Twice within the past 17 days matters of considerable importance concerning the policing of the metropolitan district have become headline news. There was the tragic incident at Trafalgar square on new year's eve and the horrifying mistaken shooting of Mr. Stephen Waldorf in Kensington last Friday night. Both incidents caused much disquiet among my constituents and the general public. They have also renewed the clamour in many circles for legislation that will make the Metropolitan police more accountable to the electorate.
A number of questions regarding both incidents have already been asked by hon. Members and the general public. Questions have been raised outside the House about the efficacy of crowd control and the suitability of Trafalgar square as the only venue in London for new year's eve celebrations.
Last Friday's tragedy, as we have heard today, filled hon. Members with horror. Hon. Members and the general public have questioned strongly the use of firearms and their deployment within the Metropolitan police district. Many people, whose motivations are directed not solely to the democratic accountability of the police force, have used the incidents as excuses to pillory the police and call for political control.
If you were to grant me leave to move the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker, the debate that would take place would serve to increase public confidence in the Metropolitan police when that confidence is not at its highest. Furthermore, the outcome of the debate would be of great assistance to the Home Secretary in this important matter. Therefore, I stress that the matter is specific, urgent and important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday today that he would seek to leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the accountability of the police in the Metropolitan police district",
for the reasons that he has outlined in his application.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
I should like the House to know that I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who had intended to make an application under Standing Order No. 9, for acceding to my request not to pursue it. I thought that the House should know that I am grateful when an hon. Member co-operates in that way.

House of Commons (Demonstration)

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking your guidance about a peaceful demonstration this afternoon at 3.30 by a number of supporters of the Greenham Common women's peace camp. Amongst the demonstrators were a number of my constituents. When I last saw them, they were being dragged by the police from Central Lobby down the steps to Westminster Hall, where they are now, together with about 100 other young women, surrounded by policemen. I cannot find out how long they will be detained in Westminster Hall and what charges are being levelled against them. Will you use your influence, Mr. Speaker, to persuade the Leader of the House to make a statement about the demonstration—[Interruption.]

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall suspend the sitting if we cannot be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like some of my colleagues, I witnessed the whole affair. I wish to ask "What next?" About 70 of those women are cordoned off in a corner of Westminster Hall. What will happen to them? I was grateful to the Serjeant at Arms. When the women were dragged along the floor of Central Lobby, there was no trouble because the surface of the floor is polished. However, when the police started dragging them down the steps into Westminster Hall, some of the police—not all of them—acted roughly. The Serjeant at Arms intervened on the women's behalf to ask some of the police to be more careful.
I understand that sometimes the names of such people are taken. They are not allowed to come into Parliament again for five years. Those women have not interfered with the conduct of the House—I regard the women who made a disturbance in the Strangers' Gallery as separate from the women to whom I am referring. Those women did not act violently. They sat down. They did not interfere with the proceedings of Members of Parliament.
What action do you think can or should be taken, Mr. Speaker, against those women? After all, it is our House of Commons. It is we and you who decide. A reprisal may come. I do not want to see any reprisals. Those women represent millions of people. I appeal to you to use your influence to see that those women do not suffer because of a brave action, even if not all Members of Parliament agree with it.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he will allow me to say something first.
I have listened with great care to what has been said about the incidents this afternoon. The House is aware that those who carry out responsibilities for us in ensuring freedom of movement within this building have a difficult task to perform, especially if anyone tries to prevent proceedings in the Chamber from taking place. That is an offence against our democracy. We cannot allow anyone to try to stop the proceedings of Parliament. If that were to happen, it would be the end of our democracy.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While entirely endorsing what you said and while finding the unhelpful noisiness from the Gallery not really a matter that helps the argument in the House, may I ask why some of those ladies should not be allowed to make their representations in the Central Lobby, if they so wish, through the green card system? It seems to me wholly unacceptable that, if they want to make a protest to individual Members, they should not be allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. I should like to draw to your attention the fact that the women in no way interfered with hon. Members going about their business. Their action may have been precipitated by the fact that a number of hon. Members to whom they submitted green cards did not come to speak to the women, so the women felt put off. The women took part in a peaceful protest in the Central Lobby and were then dragged across the floor. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) that, in most cases, the police tried to make sure that no injuries were sustained by the women, but one or two women were bumped downstairs. I ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the specific points that have been raised.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that all hon. Members will bear in mind that demonstrations within the Palace are entirely different from demonstrations outside the building. I have said that I shall consider the matter. I shall consider with sympathy the points that have been raised. A primary task of every Speaker through the ages has been to ensure that no one within this building tries to bring undue pressures to bear on the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely share your concern about the maintenance of democracy and freedom of expression in this Chamber. However, I should like to invoke your assistance as a servant of Parliament as distinct from a servant of the Government. Time after time, Opposition Members have pressed for a debate on disarmament as opposed to defence, and time after time this has been refused by the Leader of the House. If you could use your influence to secure time for such a debate, it would be of great advantage and might relieve some of the frustration felt by many of these women and millions outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: It would be a dangerous time for the House if the Speaker sought to intervene and decide what subjects ought to be debated by the House. From time to time hon. Members would be so indignant that I should prefer not to come into the Chamber.

BILL PRESENTED

DOG LICENCES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Sir Anthony Fell, supported by Sir John Langford-Holt, presented a Bill to require the attachment to collars of dogs of visible indications of the date of issue of licences; and to increase the fee for dog licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Cope.]

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 25th January 1983.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted day

7. (1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted

business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day; "the Bill" means the Transport Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have announced the selection of the amendments to the allocation of time motion, but the House should be under no illusion that when the three hours are up I shall be able to put the Question only on the amendment before the House.

Mr. Biffen: The House will readily appreciate the importance of the Transport Bill and its role in the Government's legislative programme. I should therefore like to indicate the Government's broad case for this legislation. The Bill is needed for two main reasons. First, in the past year or so, major uncertainties have arisen about the legal powers of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan authorities to give subsidies to their transport executives. The GLC had to abandon its "Fares Fair" policy after the House of Lords judgment. Following challenge, Merseyside was able to continue its policy, but the West Midlands, when challenged, changed its policy. Now, once again, the GLC and London Transport are to explore in the courts the legality of their proposed policy. These uncertainties about the powers to provide subsidy must be resolved.
Secondly, there is the rapid growth of subsidy. Over the past three years subsidies in the conurbations have more than doubled from less than £200 million to more than £400 million and forecasts for next year predicted an increase to about £700 million. The Government support subsidies and have accepted £283 million revenue support for 1983–84 for the purposes of transport supplementary grant, but the Government cannot support excessive subsidies, which are likely in any case to lead to further challenges.
The Bill aims to solve the problem of legal uncertainty within the context of a reasonable national total subsidy. Authorities will be able to choose the legal protection that the Bill will provide for a reasonable subsidy. Alternatively, they may risk challenge if they decide to exceed the protected level.
The Bill also aims to increase the efficiency of the transport undertakings in a number of ways, including improved financial and operational planning and careful assessment of the value for money to be obtained from subsidies. It is not for me to comment on the details of the Bill, but I have described its aims in order to show that it is about important matters.
The Government naturally hoped for useful consideration and improvement in Standing Committee. Indeed, the House will appreciate that the Select Committee on Transport, which includes hon. Members from both sides of the House, in its Fourth Report said:

we believe that the Government is right to seek some reduction from the levels of public transport revenue support which occurred last year".
In moving the allocation of time motion, I draw attention to the way in which the Bill, which received a majority of 284 to 224 on Second Reading on 15 November, has been treated in Committee. The Standing Committee has now spent more than 80 hours on the Bill. It has met on 14 occasions and the Official Report of its proceedings runs to 832 columns—about 500,000 words. The Committee sat until midnight on two occasions and until 5 am or later on three further occasions.
The House will wish to know of the progress made. It is a moderately short Bill with only 12 clauses. In all this time, the Committee has dealt with clause 1—a short definition clause—and two groups of amendments to clause 2, which deals with a new common financial duty of London Transport and passenger transport executives. Clauses 3 to 12 are untouched. The heart of the Bill—clauses 3 to 6—has not been reached. Those clauses set up a new system for the executive and authority to prepare three-year public transport plans. They also provide for the Secretary of State to confer his guidance on the protected level of expenditure. Similarly, clauses 7 to 10 and the schedule, which deal with organisational reviews, tendering, repeals, commencement and transitional provisions, have not yet been considered. Nor has clause 11, which deals with the National Dock Labour Board debt.
The Government wish the Bill, which was endorsed by the House on Second Reading, to be in place for the next financial year. The Standing Committee has had ample time for its consideration. The Government must now consider the need to provide reasonable time for the remaining stages. The order provides that the Bill be reported to the House by 25 January, with proceedings on Report and Third Reading being concluded in one day thereafter at one hour after midnight.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Leader of the House has given so much detail about the Committee's work, will he tell us how many times closures were moved? Did not the Government simply allow the Committee to record hours with the specific intention of taking no notice of it until 80 hours of exchange of ideas and views had been reached and of bringing in a timetable motion on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the closure motions were applied on procedural issues. Otherwise, the Government were anxious that there should be uninhibited debate. I am sorry that the Government's generosity was not reciprocated by a correspondingly constructive approach by the Opposition.
I am sure that the Business Committee will allocate the remaining time in such a way as to ensure that the Standing Committee gives some attention to the matters that it has not yet considered. The Government have played their part in trying to ensure adequate discussion of the Bill and have been ready to accept worthwhile amendments.
The tactics adopted by the Opposition become clear when I describe the treatment of one group of amendments. After nearly half an hour of debate, the Under-Secretary of State said that he was willing to accept the principle of the amendments, but the Opposition then took a further 75 minutes discussing that group of


amendments before moving on. I refer to amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 19, which were discussed on 25 November.
The Opposition are perhaps to be commended on the dedication with which they have sought to achieve their objectives by speaking with such stamina and procedural skill, but that process cannot continue indefinitely.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Oh yes it can.

Mr. Biffen: That robust comment from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) says it all and should certainly appear in the record. Those who oppose the principle of the Bill, contrary to the endorsement given by the House on Second Reading, are putting the Bill at risk rather than seeking to consider and improve it. Many of the amendments have been designed to strike at the heart of the Bill rather than to improve it.
For example, one set of amendments sought to exclude each of the authorities and executives from the Bill. that debate took about 300 columns in the Official Report, or 26½ hours of the Committee's time. The Opposition insisted on voting on six of the amendments separately.
Any dispassionate observer would conclude that the Bill's opponents seek its death rather than its improvement. The Government must use this allocation of time order to ensure progress for the Bill. It is a decision not taken lightly or wantonly. It is the inevitable consequence of the protracted debating combat that has taken place in Standing Committee A.

Mr. John Silkin: During the second or third week in March, I always find myself at the Dispatch Box saying to whoever happens to be the Leader of the House "I see that the guillotine season of spring is with us". Spring has come two months early this year. One is entitled to ask why in this instance the guillotine has been introduced so much earlier than normal. The guillotine is normally put to the House in March. That has happened in previous years under successive Governments.
First, why should it not be put? There is a pretty good rule that every Government are entitled to get through the legislation that is in their manifesto, even though the Opposition are entitled to as much time as is necessary to put their case. The Bill was not in any manifesto. No member of the electorate was ever given the chance to consider the terms of the Bill. I shall come later to what was to the electorate in the Conservative Party's manifesto.
The Government can argue that they are introducing a measure which, while, not in their manifesto, has received the endorsement of the House. The Government would receive the endorsement of the House because they have a majority. No doubt the same argument has been put by totalitarian Governments throughout history. The best majority is one which can clear the House of Commons. I have never heard of that as an excuse for a guillotine.
I was astonished that the Leader of the House, who takes the same view as I of the importance of This assembly, of the importance of manifestos and of the importance of keeping one's word, should have brushed aside by not even mentioning it the fact that the Bill was not in the manifesto. He did not confess to the House that there is no justification for the Bill having come to the House in the first place, let alone for it being guillotined.
I have already said that the guillotine season usually commences in March, so why is it starting in January this year? Why the indecent haste? Haste there certainly has been. I do not know whether there are historical precedents. I cannot remember a precedent where a Bill and a White Paper were published on the same day. I have never known that happen before. I put it to the Leader of the House that he has never heard of such a case either. Does it not show that when the Government—they did so wrongly because it was not in their manifesto and because it has never been done before—published the Bill and the White Paper simultaneously they knew perfectly well that they would introduce a timetable motion'?

Mr. Michael Brown: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The last Bill to be guillotined and which was not in the Government's election manifesto was the Northern Ireland Bill of 1982. Should not the Opposition on that occasion have opposed the guillotine motion? I recollect that they did not do so.

Mr. Silkin: When a Government impose their will upon the House, they get what they wish. On the other hand, if most hon. Members in the House are in agreement it does not matter whether it is in the manifesto or not. Some Bills come before the House as a result of an emergency and the Opposition deliberately help the Government to expedite that legislation. There is nothing unusual about that.
The Government, in their White Paper, promised that there would be widespread consultation with the local authorities concerned. I think that the Government have a slightly different view from most other democrats of the meaning of "consultation". Consultation is the process whereby there is an amount of give and take. People are asked their opinions and their opinions are listened to. Consultation is not as the Government and certainly the Secretary of State for Transport appear to think. It is not "We shall do this. You can take it or leave it."
The Leader of the House illustrated, the fact that 80 hours were required by the Opposition to do the Government's work because the Government had omitted to carry out any consultation. Somebody had to do it. I am astonished at the patience of my hon. Friends in allowing themselves to continue in Committee until 5 am to do the Government's work. They should be commended rather than treated in this unseemly fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has said that the only closure motions were on the sittings motions. I am expert on closure motions because I was once a Chief Whip.

Mr. Cryer: So far as I can recall, there were only two closure motions moved on the sitting motions in Committee. It was clear to Committee Members—we were quite happy to try to improve the Bill even though we did not agree with it, and two minor amendments were accepted by the Government—that Government Members were allowing the debate to take place and to let the hours clock up with a view to introducing a timetable motion. They had no care for the sympathetic treatment of the legislation.

Mr. Silkin: When a Government think in terms of a guillotine on a matter not in their manifesto, the subject of the indictment begins to grow even more monstrous


than had been first imagined. Much time was taken up by the batching of a large number of amendments. The Opposition were put to a great deal of work in doing the Government's job of consultation and improving the Bill.
There were 160 amendments, which were designed to help the Government in presenting this atrocious Bill, the principles of which we rejected from the start and continue to reject. The Leader of the House must say something on the lack of efficiency and the lack of consultation that has taken place. I hope that he will have a word with those concerned.
I have talked about three bases of objections. The third is democracy. As the Lord President fairly said, there is a clash on principle and on aim. However, he claimed that there was no real clash of principle on subsidy. He said that the Government were in favour of subsidy but he drew his line of principle at a slightly further point.
The point of principle on which we disagree is that of "excessive subsidy". Who is to decide what is excessive? If the Government had said to the electorate in their manifesto "This is what we would like to do, now vote for us", that would be as good a reason as one could find for saying that local democracy was being put into practice. Incidentally, it is historically a democracy that is older than that which prevails at Westminster.
Is it not local democracy when the local electorate has a right to make its decision? If that electorate says clearly "Subsidise local transport—we know that the rates will increase but go ahead and do it", other parties might regard the increase as excessive, as the losing party in the GLC election considered certain proposals to be excessive, but surely the local electorate should have the right to make such a decision.
I well recall the lectures from the then Secretary of State for the Environment throughout the debates on the Local Government Bill that was introduced in 1972. At that time I was leading for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman used to lecture me on the rights of local authorities and on what local democracy actually meant. He was full of those sermons and I listened attentively to him. I gather that he was still at it in July 1979. At the annual conference of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which took place that month, he said:
An effectively functioning local democracy can monitor the activities of local councillors far better than civil servants in Marsham Street.
How much we agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It seems that the Government have changed their mind, or perhaps what the right hon. Gentleman said was merely an automatic continuation of the things that he had been saying in 1972.

Mr. Stan Crowther: The judgment of Mr. Justice Woolf in the Merseyside case is completely relevant to the argument that my right hon. Friend is advancing. It states clearly that an authority is acting lawfully provided that it has taken into account all the relevant considerations in determining what the subsidy should be—in other words, that it has exercised its 7 discretion properly. The Bill is turning that judgment on, its head. It is saying, in effect, that if an authority goes beyond the Secretary of State's guidance it may be acting unlawfully. It is the failure of Ministers to deal adequately

with that crucial issue that has led to many hours being spent in Committee. If we had had some clear answers on it, we would not have needed to take so much time.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, that is germane to the argument. It turns very much on the issue to which my argument is directed.
I am glad that the Lord President did not treat us to the old chestnut that the Secretary of State for Transport occasionally uses, which is the argument that the Bill has been introduced to clear up difficulties in the law. He is not engaged in clearing up the difficulties, which the judge in the Merseyside case saw a little more clearly and more intelligently. The truth is that he is out to introduce new law. He has decided that he in his wisdom and munificence will decide what level of subsidy local authorities need apply in their areas. These are the authorities that were elected by the local people. That is the real distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has made a strong point, but on this occasion I must commend the Lord President for not having treated us to the hollow argument that has occasionally been advanced by the Secretary of State.
The motion is a bad one for all the reasons that I have given. It arises from circumstances that I have not known before. It stems from a controversial, opposed, non-manifesto and new commitment. It constitutes a breach of the normal practice in the House, because it has been introduced hastily and because the Bill goes against every tenet of local democracy. The Opposition believe in local democracy and are the defenders of it. We shall continue to adopt that posture whatever the Government may say. Accordingly, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, and even Members representing other parties, to defeat a monstrous attempt to muzzle Parliament and our democracy.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) seeking to move his amendment now or later?

Mr. Silkin: I shall do so later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I support the motion. I have had the somewhat doubtful pleasure of sitting in the Committee Room waiting anxiously to make my contribution to the discussion. The amount of time that has been taken to discuss clause 1, Which is simply a definition clause, has meant, unforturnately, that we have been unable effectively to discuss the Bill in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Deprford (Mr. Silkin) said, in effect, "We oppose the Bill and we shall continue to oppose it." He treated us to a short lecture on the role of Parliament. Whatever he may wish to say about Parliament's role he will, I am sure, be ready to distinguish between the purposes of a standing Committee and those extension of a debate on the principle of the Bill. That has been the character of the Committee proceedings in practice.
An to exclude geographical areas from the Bill is to provide the basis on which an argument can be presented for the way in which transport is operated within each of the metropolitan counties. I have found much of that debate fascinating but I think that we should note the


way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) introduced no fewer than six of his contributions. He may have used the same introduction on other occasions but I read with great care over Christmas what he said. On six occasions he invited the Committee to "meander along this pathway". I do not think that anyone with a classical education, which I am sure both the hon. Gentleman and I share, would suggest that "meander" suggests urgency, determination to examine closely and a wish to help the Government to get businesslike procedures in hand.
The phrase suggests one thing and one thing only, and that is that the Opposition are opposing the Bill in principle and wish to delay its progress. It seems that their thinking is as follows. If the Bill can be delayed for a time and there is a need for a business motion, that will be seen by the public as one more step in the battle on principle.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there would have been more contributions by Conservative Members in Committee if the Government Benches had been occupied more by those who represent the metropolitan counties, which are the only counties affected by the Bill? The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency that is further away from the metropolitan counties in the north than nearly any other.

Mr. Griffiths: I had many years' experience of the Midlands, I have spent a great deal of time on Merseyside and I have experience of a shire county. I am able to bring a balance which perhaps has been missing from the speeches that have been made in Committee by Opposition Members, which have tended to constitute a special pleading for their areas.
I am disappointed that we have not been able to discuss the details of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware, there are many Conservative Members in Committee who wish to debate them and to do so critically. We have not yet had the opportunity to do that. During the Christmas recess I was able to discuss the Bill with people in my constituency who are interested in matters to do with buses. They asked me what was going on in Committee about a Bill which might become law. They want to know what will happen in the metropolitan counties just as much as the shire counties. They were disappointed to learn that those members of the Opposition on the Committee, whom they regard as their champions, were not debating the points of the Bill.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The attention of Mr. Speaker was drawn earlier to the position in Westminster Great Hall where about 70 women who have been demonstrating have been corralled. Members of the press, who sought to approach the women to ask them why they were there, were denied access by the police, who stated that the women were prisoners. What precisely is their status? If they are prisoners, what access will they have to legal representation? When will they be treated properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member was probably here when Mr. Speaker dealt with the matter a few moments ago and said that he would look into it. I have no information beyond that.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the point that you make, but

surely there has been a further development. About 70 of our fellow subjects are downstairs surrounded by a cordon of police and corralled by various steel and iron railings. Members of the press sought to approach them to ask questions and were told by the officer in charge that the women were prisoners and access to them was denied. Are they or are they not prisoners? Should they or should they not be allowed access to the press?
This is important. Members of Parliament can speak to them and can act as telephones from the prisoners to the press. Why should the press be denied direct access to the women?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has been here a long time. He will know that whenever there is a disturbance in the Gallery those who create the disturbance are given into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. That is the normal procedure. I imagine that that is what happened in this instance.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order. These people were not involved in any demonstration in the Gallery; they were engaged in a demonstration in the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be unfair to have points of order upon which it is not possible for me to rule during a guillotine motion which lasts for only three hours. Mr. Speaker has already said that he is looking into the matter.

Mr. Reg Race: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As someone who is hoping to catch your eye later, I appreciate what you say. I understand that Mr. Speaker was to have further consultations and was possibly going to make a decision at or around five o'clock. Would it be possible later today for a statement to be made by the Chair on the decision that has been made about the large number of people who have seemingly been arrested within the Palace of Westminster? There is anxiety that these women, who have come here to protest peacefully, may be treated as criminals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is correct and these people who are "held prisoner"—I think those were the words he used—were in the Central Lobby and not the Gallery, the easiest way to settle the matter will be for me to draw it to Mr. Speaker's attention. I shall do so.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the press be allowed access in the meantime?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I will draw this matter to Mr. Speaker's attention. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Harry Cowans: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is correct when he says that I used the word "meander". He implies that there is some guilt attached to that. On previous occasions when I have used the word "meander" it has led to amendments being carried in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is implying some guilt, I should point out that on no fewer than 12 occasions three of four of his hon. Friends meandered with me down that path and during the course of that meandering their education was


improved considerably. If there is some guilt, and I submit that there is not, is it not shared when the meandering was on both sides?

Mr. Griffiths: In a Standing Committee, which is charged by the House with the specific duty of examining the detail of a Bill, meandering, from whatever source and in whatever direction, is undesirable. It is notable that on one occasion when I broke into the meandering of the hon. Gentleman to ask him a specific question after he had claimed that there was a direct relationship between bus fares and school attendance, he was unable to answer.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Minister has already admitted that there are two major fundamental defects in the legislation in that in clauses 1 and 2—definition clauses—revenue expenditure is not properly defined? Will he concede also that the Government have slipped up because they have not dealt with reserves and the use of reserves by PTAs in the Bill? How can the hon. Gentleman say that time has been wasted during the discussion when there have been those admissions and when the future of local councillors depends upon the Bill?

Mr. Griffiths: At no time have I used the phrase "waste of time". That was the hon. Gentleman's phrase, not mine. I certainly accept the point which has been made, that from the beginning the policy of the Government Front Bench was to accept amendments which were intended to improve the interpretation of the Bill. That was done quickly. It could have been done even more speedily.
I do not suggest that the time in Committee has been wasted—far from it. We have spent 80 hours in Committee. I am not rising merely to oppose the amendments that have been placed on the Order Paper by the Opposition; I support my right hon. Friend's business motion. I now realise how essential it is for us to give the Government the fullest support on the Bill, because during the meanderings, particularly those relating to South Yorkshire, we learnt what the Opposition's transport policy is. I do not regard that as an unhelpful beginning to the discussions which we shall be having, no doubt in far more businesslike manner, over the next few weeks.

Mr. Cryer: I am worried about the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks because he is implying that the Chairman allowed comments which were out of order. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chairman conducted the Committee absolutely fairly and that the amendments and speeches that were allowed by the Chairman were in order? Had they been out of order the Chairman, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, would have called the speaker to order immediately. Therefore, all the comments were relevant except on the few occasions when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was out of order and was properly called to order by the Chairman.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to state clearly that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) has conducted the Committee with the greatest of skill and courtesy and the utmost patience. I do not suggest that time was wasted or that comments were out of order. I suggest simply that it was shown that there was no desire to get

on to the real business of the Bill. I do not consider that the Opposition are prepared to debate the details. If this motion is passed, over the next two or three weeks we shall see whether the Opposition are prepared to do so and whether they are capable of so doing. That is something to which I am looking forward.
I see the business motion as giving all members of the Committee the opportunity that they have been seeking since the Committee began to discuss the detail of the Transport Bill. That is the opportunity that we have. I suggest that hon. Members on both sides now say "Enough is enough. The meandering is over. Now let the Committee carry out the duty for which it was appointed" and give their support to the motion.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Conservative Members representing constituencies in Greater Manchester—I notice none is present—and those from other metropolitan counties would do well to examine the Bill and its implications very carefully before allowing themselves to be used as lobby fodder tonight and in the remaining debates.
One of the reasons for the long debates was the fact that there had been no prior consultation and we had to do the work of consultation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said. Every Monday morning in the period between the publication of the Bill and the start of the Christmas Recess I discussed matters with councillors and officials of the Greater Manchester county council. That was work that the Secretary of State should have done before he brought the Bill for Second Reading.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to omit, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) unfortunately omitted, the fact that from 28 July, four months before the Bill appeared, there was an offer of consultation to all the metropolitan authorities, including detailed proposals on how the matter might be carried forward, but consultation was prevented by instructions from the AMA to the authorities not to let their officials speak to the Government.

Mr. Marks: I referred to that so-called consultation document in one of my speeches in Committee. I said that it was extremely dictatorial and reminded me of Army orders that I saw 40 years ago.
The Bill is bad; it is mean, messy and miserable. It is a serious attack on local government. It will hit all sections of the community, particularly the people who use buses but also some of the people who use trains.
It is significant that in my area the North West Development Association, which represents local authorities, trade unions and employers—one of the joint secretaries is the chief executive of the chamber of commerce—has urged all members in its area strongly to oppose the Bill, pointing out that the probable result of it is a fare increase in Greater Manchester of 25 per cent. and in Merseyside of 40 per cent. The Bill does not clarify matters; it confuses them even more. I would suggest not a guillotine but some other form of execution for the Bill.
We have had uninhibited debates. The Government have made no attempt to bring to an end the various debates on the large number of amendments which each concerned. I freely admit that I have made the three


longest speeches of my parliamentary career during the Committee stage of the Bill. All of them lasted about an hour. The first was to say how the Bill affected Greater Manchester, the area in which I live and which I represent. Another of my speeches was on Merseyside, where a case took place in court which clarified the situation completely for the metropolitan counties other than London. The third was on concessionary fares. The Bill could seriously damage concessionary fares not only for children but for old people and others.
It has been argued by the Leader of the House that, because the Bill was given a Second Reading by the House, we should not take our time carefully to debate the Bill in Committee. But it is even more necessary now than it was then. Since Second Reading we have had the strange leak to the press that the Cabinet on Thursday will consider a proposal to abolish the metropolitan county councils, and one reason for doing away with this Bill is that if the Government start that process of abolition they will need to bring in another Bill on transport almost immediately. We do not know who will be responsible for transport, the police, fire brigades or for other important matters in the future.
This is only one phase of the Government's attack on local government. The Water Bill is another, taking away all councillors nominated by their local councils to the water authorities. The actions of the Secretary of State for the Environment have penalised local authorities. What the Government are doing is in direct contradiction to what the Layfield committee said would be the best way to run local government. The committee said that the metropolitan counties were necessary because of the close proximity of people and the numbers of people, but that we could do away with the shire counties. The unitary authorities that Layfield suggested would make a better job of transport, concessionary fares and so on than the present shire counties do.
I believe that the time allotted in the proposals for the remainder of the amendments is quite inadequate. If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and other Conservative Members are to take an active part in the Committee, the time allocated to debate the important clauses, 3, 4, 5 and right on to 11, is quite inadequate. I hope that the amendments put down by my right hon. Friends will be accepted if we are to have a time table.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not detain the House for very long, but I want to follow the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin).
I am perhaps the only hon. Member on the Conservative Benches who last year opposed a Government guillotine. I did it on the basis of being opposed to the whole Bill. My aim was the same as that of the Opposition over this Bill—to defeat a particular Bill, the Northern Ireland Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House drew to the attention of the House on that occasion that it had expressed the will to give the Bill a Second Reading. Although I opposed and voted against the guillotine motion, nevertheless I accepted the basic philosophy that a Government, having been given the authority of the House to introduce a Bill on Second Reading, even though I may use every parliamentary means at my disposal to try to defeat the Bill, are entitled to say that they wish to get that Bill through.
I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to take up the point that he made about whether a specific proposal in the form of a Bill was or was not in a political party's election manifesto. I drew to his attention the fact that the provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill were not in the election manifesto of this Government; indeed, the Bill seemed to me to be quite contrary to it.

Mr. John Silkin: Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the point, surely the purpose of that guillotine was not to prevent the House from discussing matters but to prevent the Lord President's hon. Friends from discussing them.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated my remarks. I shall come to the precise point of the purpose of a Committee stage.
I got the impression, when the right hon. Gentleman replied to my intervention, that on this occasion the Leader of the House should listen to what he had to say about the Transport Bill on the ground that the minority opposed to it was a large one—I am quoting his words almost exactly. I do not think that it is right when we discuss a guillotine motion to talk in terms of who constitute the minority and how large it is. The right hon. Gentleman is right. On the last occasion the minority consisted in the main of all the Ulster political parties except the SDLP and, I accept, only 20 or 25 hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. It is irrelevant from which side of the House hon. Members speak in a discussion about a guillotine motion.
Clearly Opposition Members wish to defeat the Transport Bill in its entirety. That is a legitimate aim. In the same way, I was opposed to the Northern Ireland Bill and used whatever parliamentary devices were available to me in Committee to defeat it within the rules of order. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that everything said in Committee must be relevant, otherwise hon. Members would be ruled out of order.
Those who wish to defeat a Bill will obviously use the Committee stage to fulfil that purpose. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had the misfortune of taking the Chair in the long Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Bill. I make no apology for the fact that, when I was speaking on the amendments to that Bill, my only aim was to defeat the Bill. Of course, I was interested in the amendments but my arguments were used mainly to try to defeat the Bill and to persuade the Government to drop it. The same tactics are now being adopted by the Opposition towards the Transport Bill.
While Opposition Members have had to address their remarks to relevant matters—otherwise they should have been ruled out of order—they were not especially interested in the arguments about the amendments, but wished primarily to defeat the Bill, as I wished to defeat the Northern Ireland Bill last year. That was the way in which they used the period up to the point when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought a timetable motion before the House.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Although it is true that the Chairman did not have to call hon. Members to order for their speeches, did he not regularly have to call to order those who tried to intervene and to make additional speeches?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the danger of the meanderings of the hon. Member for


Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans). He invited the Committee to meander and we accepted that invitation. When we did so, we were pulled up for it. That is the problem about meandering in Committee, when in one's heart one wishes to defeat a Bill rather than to concentrate on specific clauses.
For better or worse, the House charged a Committee of the whole House last year to consider the detailed clauses and amendments of the Northern Ireland Bill with the view to getting the Bill passed. At the time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House acknowledged that I and my hon. Friends were not anxious to improve the Bill—we had admitted that we did not believe that it could be improved—but that our purpose was to defeat it. Therefore, as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, he had a duty to bring before the House a motion that would give effect to the will of the House at Second Reading. The House is in the same position today. The Opposition, as is their right, wish to defeat the Bill and they are not so anxious about its detailed improvement. Therefore, I understand why they cannot accept the timetable motion.
After a timetable motion was imposed on the Northern Ireland Bill, my hon. Friends and I were listened to with more interest by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those Opposition Members who oppose the guillotine motion may find that when the Bill is guillotined they will have greater opportunities to improve the Bill in the ways that they have proposed. That is why I shall vote for my right hon. Friend's motion today.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I have long held the view that all Bills should be timetabled, but there is a world of difference between timetabling a Bill at the outset and introducing a timetable motion at this stage. Much time has been spent on the Bill in Committee, especially on clause 1, which dealt only with a definition of terms. The way in which Opposition Members introduced amendments on such a restricted part of the Bill was a great tribute to their dexterity, skill and ability and enabled them to prolong proceedings.
What has happened now is what always happens on such occasions. A guillotine motion will curtail drastically further discussion of the Bill. The heart of the Bill in clauses 3 to 6—in which some of us are very interested and to which the Leader of the House referred—will not receive the quality of discussion that I should have preferred. The timetabling of a Bill from the outset would enable us to have a properly structured discussion of it. That will not happen in this case.
I shall oppose the guillotine motion this evening and advise my hon. Friends to do so, because the Bill is very bad and unsatisfactory in many ways, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said. Hon. Members in Committee produced ample evidence to prove how bad and uncertain the Bill is, and the serious effect that it will have on those who will suffer from its implementation.
From the outset the Bill has had an unhappy history. I have some revealing correspondence that was sent by Merseyside county council to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams). The correspondence shows that there was no meaningful consultation with the people involved at any stage before publication of the Bill.
The Secretary of State made a statement to the House on 26 July, in response to the fiasco that developed with the GLC, in which he said, quite properly, that he intended to introduce legislation to clarify the position and to determine the future of revenue support for local transport operators. On 27 July, the day after his statement, he sent a note to the GLC and all the metropolitan counties. But that note, which I have read carefully, lacked any detail that could have led to realistic discussions and, not unnaturally, the metropolitan authorities were extremely disturbed and unhappy about the position.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State met the leaders of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC on 27 September, when I gather from the correspondence that I have that the Secretary of State made it perfectly plain that
he was not open to any form of negotiation on the legislation.
That is a shameful posture to adopt on such an important matter. However, the Minister went on to promise a paper on what he called "methodology" and planning procedures. The authorities did not receive the guidance until 2 November, and three days later the Bill and the White Paper were published. That is not the way to behave if one expects to obtain the understanding and co-operation of authorities in what is admittedly a difficult matter.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) mentioned the astonishing fact that the White Paper and the Bill were published on the same day. That is almost without precedent in the House, but it happened. Not only were those documents published on 5 November, but some of us were astonished when the Second Reading was arranged for as early as 15 November. Three days later, on 18 November, the Leader of the House was questioned by the Leader of the Opposition about the hastiness and the need for proper consultation. I hope that I do not do the Leader of the House an injustice or misrepresent him when I say that he seemed to give a real sign that there would be time for consultation before the Bill went to its Committee stage. But no; the Bill went into Standing Committee on 23 November.
Such hastiness is very suspicious, especially on a measure that has not had proper consultation and has not carried with it the authorities concerned in its implementation. It was not surprising to me or to other members of the Committee that hardly an hour of the first sitting of the Committee had elapsed before the Under-Secretary of State very pleasantly, as is his manner, conceded the guts of an amendment put forward by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). It was a revealing sign that no careful thought and judgment had gone into the measure.
That is only part of the unhappy history of the Bill. It was well said by a member of the Committee during our discussion that it is more a local government measure than a transport measure. No one is better equipped to take local decisions than the elected representatives of local people in the light of local circumstances. That is what it is all about, although I do not need four hours to say it. It is entirely wrong that we should push such a major measure through the House at breakneck speed and guillotine it without a background of consultation or the careful consideration that the House must give to such matters.
I resent the way in which the matter has been handled. The Bill is bad and has few friends. Perhaps I may be forgiven for feeling that it is a vengeful response to the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy. I am not an apologist for the


GLC and I certainly do not justify its policies. The Select Committee on Tranport, of which I am Chairman, has made proposals about how the vexed question of the GLC's transport arrangements and their financing should be handled in the future. I say in all friendliness to the Secretary of State that he would have been better advised, although it might have taken much longer to get the necessary legislation through the House, to introduce the proposals that the Select Committee put forward in its report to deal with the difficult problem of the GLC rather than to drag in the other metropolitan authorities. Many of us believe that that was totally unnecessary in this Bill.

Mr. Matthew Parris: It was the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Rodgers) who first got to grips with South Yorkshire county council and tried to prevent it subsidising local transport. At that time the council's subsidies were much lower than they are now. Why does the hon. Gentleman now believe that such authorities should be left alone?

Mr. Bradley: That point has been raised many times, but it does not invalidate my earlier proposition that the best people to make such decisions are the elected representatives of a locality in the light of local circumstances. That is how it should be done. No party has talked more about the value of and the right to independence of local authorities than the Conservative Party. Yet no party has done more since it has been in government to undermine the independence of our local authorities and to remove many of their traditional rights and freedom of action.
After long, patient and careful consideration, the Select Committee pointed the way to dealing with the problems of the GLC. Its way forward is more acceptable than that proposed in this hastily prepared and doubtful measure. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the motion this evening.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I have listened to Opposition Members accusing my right hon. Friend and the Government of indecent haste in this matter. It must be admitted by any fair-minded person that if an invitation was issued, as my right hon. Friend said, to metropolitan county councils to discuss the Bill as long ago as 21 July or thereabouts, and there was no response, and that for political reasons best known to Labour Members the authorities received suggestions—if not instructions—that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities should not respond, the Opposition are culpable. They would be speaking with a forked tongue and in a divided manner if they maintained that the Government intended to deceive them, to move quickly, to circumvent them or to prevent them from having enough time properly and reasonably to make all representations that are required on behalf of ratepayers. Let us nail that fact and accent it, because it must be accented. Opposition Members can make such speeches. They were invited by my right hon. Friend to come and discuss the matter and talk it over, before the White Paper was issued, at any time during that long summer. They were invited to debate and discuss. I must emphasise that there was no reaction.
I and my colleagues have had to sit through long days and evenings. My hon. Friend the Member for

Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that it was about 80 hours, but I do not know. We debated, and we listened through the days and the nights in the main to Opposition Members making whatever representations they quite properly wished to make in connection with the Bill.
I shall not accuse Opposition Members of making boring or puerile speeches. Indeed, I would commend much of what they said. However, we meandered. We meandered through pastures green, and only the Chairman's benevolence prevented many more hon. Members from being ruled out of order. We meandered not only on land but on water. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) was a doughty exponent of his cause and a speaker to be listened to. He is a man of some magnitude in these matters. He led us meandering through water. He treated us to an exposition which I shall not forget for a long time on the Maltese breast stroke and how it was performed. His exposition was accompanied by indications of physical ability, and I am sure that he has himself meandered by water many times before. He spoke on the subject for about 20 minutes.
The hon. Member had a secret weapon. He threatened us with complete extinction. In Greek mythology it was called Pandora's box of troubles. He threatened to open that box of troubles and unleash its contents on an unsuspecting world. He threatened at least 60 times to open the box and allow those flying animals to alight and meander on land as they would through the air.
Let not Opposition Members pretend, therefore, that the whole of the 80 hours was spent with great dedication and discipline on the matters that needed to he raised. Opposition Members allowed themselves the full right to expand to any dimension on any subject.

Mr. Cryer: I am worried by what the hon. Member says. He seems to challenge the Chairman's job in the Committee and to suggest that the Chairman allowed members of the Committee to breach Standing Orders, implying that he was less than competent in carrying out his duties. Surely the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that the Committee was chaired perfectly properly and that its members were not allowed to go beyond the confines of the amendments which were properly selected and called by the Chairman. If the Committee's members had gone outside the bounds of the Standing Orders the Chairman would have called them to order, as the hon. Gentleman would surely accept, because he did not display any lack of confidence in the Chairman.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) tries to impute to me things that I did not say. I said that there was a benevolent interpretation, and I agree that all Chairmen should exercise that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Keighley and his colleagues sought to challenge my position in the first sitting. I do not make that accusation, as well he knows. What the hon. Gentleman says—to use his own favourite word—is otiose. It is redundant, and certainly cannot be used in this manner.
I promised the members of the Committee that I would give grave consideration to this Bill and to the points of democracy that were involved. I said that I would consider whether I thought that the Bill should be voted for. I have given great thought to the matter during the past weeks. I have listened to the argument that transport should be a


local responsibility. That conflicted with the theory expressed on Opposition Benches over the years that transport should be a national responsibility.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: rose—

Mr. Bevan: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen).
I have been responsible for transport in the West Midlands, both in the city of Birmingham on the passenger transport authority, and as chairman of the county council. So I thought long and hard about whether this Bill was democratic—as I think today about whether this debate is democratic. I have had to ask myself what properly constitutes democracy in these matters. Was democracy served by giving absolute freedom to a local authority to raise any fare that it wished or to subsidise any fare to any extent? Or could it easily become a licence against the ratepayer? Could it become more than a liberty? Could it become a larceny against the ratepayer?

Mr. Cohen: I, too, have been involved in the industry. I worked in it for 20 years before I became a Member of Parliament. Therefore, I am entitled to express an opinion and ask a question. During the past three weeks, and up to this morning, I have been involved in discussions in an attempt to solve some of the problems. I am not a member of the Standing Committee, but some of the problems that we have been discussing are those that the Committee should consider very carefully. For someone who has not been involved in the industry to pass the critical comments that we have heard this evening is rather distressing. It would be helpful if we could have the co-operation of Conservative members of the Committee to resolve some of the problems that face the transport industry generally and affect the country in economic and social ways.

Mr. Bevan: I am glad that the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East demonstrates his participation as a professional in these matters. Undoubtedly, he is proud of it. It is good to know that Opposition Members are professionals.
Perhaps I may respond to the hon. Gentleman's criticism of me that I have not actually worked in the industry by saying that every Labour Member on the Opposition Benches is a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (TASS), the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, the National Union of Railwaymen, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Mineworkers, the National Union of Teachers, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the National Union of Public Employees, or the Post Office Engineering Union.—[Interruption.] It seems, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my speech is becoming a duet. The choir invisible is joining in. I emphasise that virtually every Labour Member on the Committee is a member of a union. Every hon. Member has a vested interest of some sort, if only a political interest. There is a deep interest in transport. Therefore, Labour Members must have every intention of opposing the Bill as they have
Is it right or fair that the Bill be allowed to proceed? Does it stop discussion? I think not. Does it stop fundamental rights? I think not. I note—it has been emphasised today more than at any other time—that licence is being taken in local government. Unless the Bill

is allowed to continue its passage, ratepayers will be ill served. In the west midlands the city of Birmingham has just announced its intention to reduce rates by 12 per cent.—about £24 million—an average of £38 for a semidetached house. The West Midlands county council has proposed that rates should be increased by well over £40 million and that there will be an extra cut of, I think, 10 per cent. of fares which will cost £70 million. In addition, about £28 million will be charged against the ratepayer by way of fines. Therefore, all the savings of the city of Birmingham for the ratepayer can be put at risk by the actions of the county council in keeping transport local. It must be reasonable to assume that the right mix should be achieved.

Mr. Crowther: In his use of the word "licence", is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking—as is the Secretary of State—the judgment of Mr. Justice Woolf in the case of the Merseyside transport authority? Mr. Justice Woolf specifically laid down the rights and duties of an authority under the law. There is no question of the authority being able to act with what the hon. Gentleman called "licence"—to act capriciously or irresponsibly. It is crystal clear that authorities must follow the proper procedure and take into account all the relevant considerations, including the ratepayers' interests, before arriving at their decision. The hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting that the law is crystal clear. Surely the Bill will make it unclear.

Mr. Bevan: I am bearing the hon. Gentleman's point in mind rather than forgetting it. In answer to him I shall apply the point to the west midlands. I remember taking over an authority in the city of Birmingham which was £1 million in the red and under my chairmanship it was put £1 million in the black. I remember taking over as chairman of a committee in the West Midlands county council and inheriting a deficit of £24 million, heading for £28 million, which was reduced to £11 million three years later. The present subsidy in the west midlands is in the region of £28 million. If the West Midlands county council is allowed to go ahead and cut fares by about 10 per cent., in addition to last year's cut of 67 per cent., the total subsidy will be about £40 million. Which is right? Which is proper? Which is it reasonable to do? Is there an obligation on an authority to exercise its delegated authority reasonably? If it fails to do so, should not the Government take steps to introduce legislation to strengthen existing legislation to emphasise that point and to be fair to the ratepayers? If one were to ask the ratepayers in the west midlands in the name of democracy and liberty whether they would prefer their rates to be reduced by 12 per cent., a reduction of about £15 million—as is proposed by the city of Birmingham—or whether they would want them to rise by £40 million, I know what those ratepayers would say. They would make it abundantly clear that they preferred the decrease.
In saying that, the ratepayers would emphasise that there is an obligation upon the House and the Committee, on every occasion when transport is considered, to see that the mix is right. If they had sat in Committee through the long hours of the night watch, night after night, they would certainly think that that mix was not right. If they read every edition of Hansard they would know that the mix was not right. When other authorities are proposing actions which would mean a mammoth rates subsidy,


those people would say that enough was enough and that the mix was not right. What is more, legislation is required to strengthen that which already exists.
It is for those reasons that I shall support the Government tonight. I have considered existing legislation and have seen how it needs strengthening. I have pointed out in Committee the areas of responsibility which need careful evaluation. The responsibility of the passenger transport authority to the Secretary of State, as well as that of the executive, is an issue that has been debated in Committee and will be again. Therefore, I shall not deal with it now. The Act should be strengthened to ensure that the political masters locally have some responsibility under the Act to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that accommodation can be found for amendments, but at the moment, because of the overriding needs of a reasonable electorate, who certainly know that in some instances we have got it wrong and that further legislation is needed to protect, not to inundate, democracy and the rights of those individuals who would otherwise have to find the extra funds required without covenant, I shall support the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate. Long speeches make it difficult for the Chair to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak.

Mr. Les Huckfield: From his speech, I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) is in favour of or opposed to the motion. He must be challenged on some of his points. It is well known in the west midlands that he has trailed his doubts about the Bill around county hall in Birmingham. There is hardly a Tory or Labour member in that building who has not been waylaid by the hon. Gentleman wishing to express his doubts.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman name those whom he alleges I have waylaid? Had he examined the true position, he would know that I visited county hall only once, and spoke to one member of his party and the officers. Such regard for veracity exposes his defence against the Bill being guillotined.

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has made many visits to county hall, but he would not wish me to tell the House about them. Why does he not do the decent thing, as did the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), and abandon serving on the Committee? The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port at least contacted Labour Herald and said that the Bill was so rotten that he could not support it. We have not seen him since. The hon. Member for Yardley does not do his cause any good by continually challenging the Government Front Bench, and not only about the Transport Bill. He also challenged his Front Bench on the Serpell report on the railways. If he wishes to convince the electorate at the next general election, he should first try to convince his own party.
We must closely examine the Government's real motive for their haste in introducing the Bill. The GLC wishes to introduce a 25 per cent. fares reduction in April and the West Midlands metropolitan county council and the Merseyside county council properly wish to introduce a 10 per cent. fares reduction on 1 April. The Secretary

of State wants to stop the fares reductions being implemented. That is the reason for the indecent haste in presenting both the White Paper and the Bill on the same day. That is why we are suffering the indecent haste of a guillotine on the Bill on the first day after the Christmas recess. That is why there will be indecent haste by the Government to attempt to persuade metropolitan county councils to base their forthcoming transport estimates on a Bill that has not yet passed through the House. The Secretary of State wants them to base their precepts on legislation and guidelines that have not yet been approved by the House or by another place.
The real cat came of the bag in the inspired leak in The Guardian last Thursday. It showed that the Government, if they had time, would wish to go even further and take away not only the transport decision-making powers of metropolitan county councils, but all their powers. They know that the metropolitan county councils under Labour control are making proper transport policy decisions. For example, there is the resounding popularity of the South Yorkshire cheap fares policy, which has been in existence since 1976. There was the popularity of the GLC's cheap fares initiative last year. The Secretary of State and the Conservative leadership wish not only to dismantle the transport decision-making powers, but to remove a major element in the political power base of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State knows that we must have some power to co-ordinate transport on a regional basis. The right hon. Gentleman knows that many of the passenger transport authorities—the hon. Member for Yardley was chairman of one—and many of the metropolitan county councils have shown that they can effectively co-ordinate passenger transport decisions. His only concern in forcing through the Bill with such haste is to curtail those transport decisions, together with some important and popular political decisions.
I declare an interest not as a councillor, but as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. My hon. Friends and I have been searching and probing the matter. Great legal difficulties confront many of our local authorities, so we are entitled to challenge and probe the right hon. Gentleman's policy. We are encouraged to probe even further each time that he or the Minister attends the Committee in a vain attempt to clarify the position. Unfortunately, they have served only to make the matter even more complex and doubtful. A multitude of legal precedents now confront locally elected councillors—such as the Kensington and Camden cases and the Merseyside and GLC decisions. Therefore, we are bound to wonder about the legal position that will affect local councillors. They may be surcharged if the Bill becomes law.
My hon. Friends and I have assiduously pressed the Secretary of State about a number of points because we believe in the value and validity of decisions being taken by locally elected councillors. We also have a duty to safeguard our locally elected colleagues. We do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman understands the far-reaching implications of some of the legislation that he intends to introduce. If the Bill is passed, he will impose a duty on all passenger transport executives to accept a cheap tender from an outside contractor if it is less than services currently costed by the passenger transport executive. The right hon. Gentleman should pause and consider that clause in the Bill. He will then understand its far-reaching implications. It could upset the way in


which local authorities provide their services. It is because of such fundamental principles that we have felt constrained to press the Secretary of State again and again.
The Bill will present the Committee, the House and many people outside with legal doubts and difficulties. I am sure that the Secretary of State has been told by his officials and advisers that there is concern about the precise legal interpretation that could be placed upon the Bill.
If the legal interpretations of the Bill are so doubtful and if the Bill is so unclear, why does the Secretary of State not withdraw it while he still has the chance to do so? His officials must have told him that if he wants to curtail many of the transport decisions that metropolitan county councils may take this year, he and the Secretary of State for the Environment already have the power to do so. Have not the right hon. Gentleman's officials told him that?
Many of us thought that the Bill's purpose was not only to curtail local transport decisions but to ensure that the Secretary of State kept his place in the Cabinet. We can assume that he has, at least for a while, kept his place in the Cabinet that is to fight the next election. If so, why does he need the Bill? Musical chairs in the Cabinet room have stopped. The right hon. Gentleman has still got his Cabinet chair. It might be at the wrong end of the table, but his place is assured.
The right hon. Gentleman already has the power to take some of the transport decisions that he may unfortunately wish to take. Why does he not withdraw the Bill and perhaps return at a later date with some meaningful and clear legislation? Why does he not abandon the horrible precedent that he is setting by rushing through the House and Committee a measure that will only cause untold chaos?

Sir Anthony Meyer: I rise with some trepidation to make my maiden speech on the Bill. The Bill does not concern my constituency. On Second Reading I went to considerable trouble not to make a speech and to be absent for the debate. Nevertheless, I found that I was a member of the Committee. I make no complaint about that, because it is part of the work that full-time Back Benchers have to do, and we all have to do our share of the chores. One part of the Bill is of interest to me and to my constituency, although only by implication. There is no Welsh interest in the Bill. There are no metropolitan authorities in Wales and no part of Wales is covered by it in any way.
This guillotine debate is one of the oddest that I have attended. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) knows, I hope, that I am one of his warmest admirers. I have often served on Committees with him and listened, fascinated, to his long and interesting speeches. However, today he made a short and boring speech, although I hope that he will forgive me for saying so. It lacked all conviction and I detected no sign of the routine synthetic anger that can be expected from the Opposition on such occasions. Give or take a few words, speeches during guillotine debates are interchangeable. To brief oneself for a guillotine debate one need only pick up a copy of Hansard to see what was said by the other side last time, and no further homework need be done.
The system of debating legislation in the House is creaking to a halt. I fully accept that the system of First and Second Readings is admirable. We hold closely-argued debates on the principle of the Bill in question. The Bill then goes to Standing Committee where, in theory—I stress "in theory"—we discuss the pros and cons of every clause and decide whether it can be improved or altered by introducing amendments. Every hon. Member knows that that does not happen in practice. Nothing of the sort has ever happened in the Committees on which I have served. In practice, there is a routine party dogfight and Second Reading speeches are usually repeated on every clause.
I make no criticism about the way in which Opposition Members conducted themselves in Committee. They make long, well-informed and usually relevant speeches on every amendment and clause. However, even they must recognise that in doing so they were knowingly making it impossible to have any rational or sensible discussion of the Bill's details. I do not blame them. That is the system. The system whereby the Government have a majority in Committee ensures that the Opposition's only weapon is time.
Nevertheless, I still question whether the Opposition were wise to behave as they did. On occasion Opposition Members have achieved their aims by making use not of the weapon of time, but of the weapon of persuasion. There have been times when Government supporters have been persuaded to change their minds and to withdraw their support from the Government on specific clauses and amendments. As a result, the Bill in question has been amended. If Opposition Members had genuinely concentrated on introducing amendments—knowing full well that some Conservative Members have misgivings about the Bill—instead of giving us a magnificent display of their erudition in the many areas to which they treated us, they might have had some success. Instead Opposition Members have merely reinforced my colleagues in their determination to support the measure even though some of us have reservations about it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). The guillotine motion is not much good, because it is far too general. It merely says that the Committee stage must be concluded by a certain date. It is probably the experience of most hon. Members that even after the application of a guillotine motion time is not sensibly allocated to the clauses and amendments. Everything tends to be concentrated on the first group of amendments. The rest is swept aside and merely voted on after the guillotine has expired.
I have no interest in the Bill, or at least in its first 10 clauses. However, I have a particular interest in clause 11. I cannot see the Committee ever reaching clause 11. As a result, and as we are debating the allocation of time, I would seem to have a perfectly good right to say a few words about it here and now. It deals with the provision of funds for the operation of the infamous Dock Work Regulation Act. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was one of the architects of that Act, or perhaps the baby was put on his doorstep.

Mr. Albert Booth: The measure that I took through the House was not given effect, because the House turned down the new dock work scheme under the Act. Neither of the successive Secretaries of State for


Employment of the present Government has carried out his statutory duty under a Act to lay a scheme to make the Act effective.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The Act is still on the statute book. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman and I do not blame him for that infamous measure. It was foisted on the Transport and General Workers Union by its dock workers section. The TGWU foisted it on to the TUC, which then foisted it on to the Labour Government. As an example of the leverage exercised by one tiny section of a union, it is almost without parallel. Nevertheless, the Act is on the statute book. I know that the orders have never been laid, but as long as the Act exists I cannot sleep easily at night.
Within my constituency lies the port of Mostyn. It is a small port with no deep water. It has poor road access, but reasonably satisfactory rail access. It plays a vital part in the economy of North Wales and provides prospects for my constituency, which has very much higher unemployment than the constituencies of a great many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches. The port plays a vital part in providing the jobs for my constituency which it so desperately needs. A number of promising new firms have settled in the area because they can make use of this small non-scheme port to bring in the raw materials they need to get out the goods that they manufacture. The port is vital to them.
This small port has no natural assets. Its one asset is its labour force, which is prepared to turn out at all hours of the day and night to ensure that any ship that comes in is turned round in the minimum time. The workers do not knock off for tea just when the unloading is almost complete. Therefore, shipowners find that it is well worth bringing their ships to the port—it can take only small ships—because they will receive good treatment.
Across the bay, across the sewage-laden waters of the Mersey and the Dee, is the great port of Liverpool, which, as all of us know, has virtually committed suicide through many of its industrial practices. Liverpool views with great resentment the activities of small ports such as Mostyn. Liverpool was delighted to have the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, because it was thought that if non-scheme docks could be forced to adopt the same working practices as those in the great scheme ports, with the flexible operations of the type which enable—

Mr. Stan Crowther: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am desperately trying to follow the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the timetable motion. I cannot understand what Liverpool docks or the docks in his constituency have to do with a timetable motion on the Transport Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) must keep in order. I think that he was in order, but I should be grateful if he would return to the timetable motion.

Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As several Members who served on the Committee wish to contribute to the debate, will you ensure that Members who speak limit their contributions so that other Members have an opportunity to contribute to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) knows that the Chair has no

ability, unhappily, to limit the time that Members speak. However, I have already made one appeal for brevity. Many other hon. Members wish to speak. I am now able to tell the House that the replies to the debate will begin at 6.55 pm. If hon. Members bear that in mind, it should be possible to call everyone who wishes to speak.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Had it not been for those two interruptions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my speech would have been concluded by now. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) that these are the points that I should wish to raise under clause 11 if we ever reach it. The guillotine motion will not enable us to get to clause 11.
I should like to find out from my right hon. Friend whether I will have an opportunity either in the remaining parts of the Committee stage or when the Bill returns to the House on Report to revert to these issues, which are of enormous importance to my constituents.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I should like to address my opening remarks to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir. A. Meyer). He is worried—I would be the first to support him—about having an opportunity to talk on those matters which affect his constituents and about which he feels strongly. As ever, I should like to help him, as I have tried to help all Conservative Members on numerous occasions. I can suggest to him how all his hopes will be fulfilled and he will have a chance to speak to clause 11 which affects his constituency. The hon. Gentleman should vote for the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) who gave a realistic alternative to the guillotine motion. The Opposition could then add one vote to whatever number we get in the Lobby. That will help the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman made a remark which I hope refers only to him personally. He referred to the chore of serving on Committees. I tell him, and anyone else who wishes to listen, that serving on the Committee on this Bill is no chore for me. My constituents are concerned about the Bill. In my constituency 82.2 per cent. of the people do not have a car, 26.6 per cent. are unemployed and 22.2 per cent. are old age pensioners.
I am pleased that the Leader of the House has returned. I agree wholeheartedly that there are important matters to be discussed, but I quarrel with him because he is taking away the right of Members on both sides of the House to discuss those important matters.
The Opposition have been accused of not being constructive. The only support the Leader of the House could find for that view was the debate on amendments Nos. 19, 26 and 27. After 80 hours of alleged non-constructive discussion, he found three amendments. I shall refute the myth that he put forward.
The myth was that the Under-Secretary of State had accepted an amendment but that the Opposition had continued to debate it. That is absolute nonsense. In fact, the hon. Gentleman accepted amendment No. 19, but amendments Nos. 26 and 27 were consequential amendments of equal importance. We made that point on amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and some of the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends joined in.
It was nonsense for the Leader of the House to comment as he did. I do not know whether it was a Freudian slip,


but he used the words "uninhibited debate". If he is moving that rather than the guillotine motion, we can all wrap up and go home. Whatever business is next can take place and time will not be wasted. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an uninhibited debate, he does not have to say that it can go on for ever; he can accept a constructive alternative. All the way through in Committee we have tried to put forward constructive alternatives.
The Leader of the House is right to say—these are his words, not mine—that there are important matters in the Bill. There are fundamental issues in the Bill that affect everyone in my constituency. My constituents have sent me here to ensure that they are represented and obtain the best that is possible for them. The right hon. Gentleman has no remit in my constituency for this nonsense or any other nonsense. It is remarkable that, of the few Conservative Members representing Tyne and Wear, not one was put on the Committee. Instead, there seem predominantly to be Members, such as the hon. Member for Flint, West, who has an interest in clause 11 but not in the other 10 major clauses. It is nonsense that that should happen.
I should like to nail the myth that the Opposition are not putting forward constructive alternatives. Indeed, we are. Amendment (b) seeks for an extension of time, which will meet the observation of the hon. Member for Flint, West that he will not be able to speak to clause 11. We ask for two days, not one day, on Third Reading. Surely that is constructive.
The problem that we face is not the fault of Opposition Members. The Bill has been badly handled from its inception. The fact that the Government have to publish the White Paper and the Bill on the same day must be bad management on the part of those who say that they are the managers of this country.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) gave the game away when he said that he was able to consult his constituents in the Christmas recess. The Committee sat 14 times before he consulted his constituents.
The Secretary of State said that he called people to a meeting. I stand to be corrected, but I understand that he called only local government officers to the meeting, not elected councillors. The point is that the Bill will take power away from locally elected representatives. That is why it is wrong that the Secretary of State should talk only to local government officers.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The invitations were sent to the metropolitan authorities so that elected representatives could either instruct their officials to attend or attend themselves. I had one discussion with elected representatives and I should have been happy to have had more.

Mr. Cowans: I stand corrected. I call the meetings not consultations but "insultations". The Secretary of State is on record as saying to the people he met that the issues were too complex to discuss across the table; yet we are accused of spending 80 hours discussing those issues. That is nonsense.
We are proposing constructive alternatives. We do not take a negative view. Our amendments are constructive and we should be allowed reasonable time to discuss them.
It is strange that five amendments have been tabled by Conservative Back Benchers and another seven by the Secretary of State. Despite that, the Leader of the House wants discussion to be curtailed. Our 80 hours of debate have obviously inspired Government Back Benchers and the Secretary of State to table amendments. The Leader of the House should argue that we need more, not less, time.

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State has tabled amendments, but he has tabled 10, not seven. One of them is exceedingly important and alters the Bill significantly.

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The number of amendments tabled changes by the hour. One must assume that the amendments were inspired by the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends. There can be no other logical conclusion.
I wonder what would have happened if the Bill had gone through with the speed of light that the Government originally wanted. They would not then have been able to table further amendments. They are important and we need more time to discuss them. It is nonsense to curtail debate in such circumstances.
Many Government Back Benchers in Committee said that they had doubts. Doubts are no good once the Bill is an Act. There is no time then to express doubts. More hon. Members should have the courage shown by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) who at least understands the Bill. In Committee, he said:
I was astonished to find that the Bill reiterates the old cliché that the man from Whitehall knows best and will tell us what to do."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 December 1982; c. 274.]
Almost every hon. Member, from whatever political party, has expressed that view at one time or another, regardless of the party in power. If local government democracy means anything, it means serving the community in the best way without the Secretary of State's heavy hand being wrapped round local representatives' necks. Why should the Secretary of State be the judge, jury and executioner? Local people do not vote for the Secretary of State when they vote in local elections. They vote for local councillors, hoping that they will do their best for the community.
The Leader of the House is right that important matters must be discussed. They will not become less important if the Government win tonight. We want uninhibited discussion, but that cannot happen under a guillotine. We have been accused of not being constructive. I contend that we have been constructive.

Mr. Cohen: Did not the Government fight the election with the slogan "Set local government free"?

Mr. Cowans: The Conservative Party, in its manifesto, promised to remove the chains allegedly imposed on local government by the Labour Government. The Conservatives promised to consider local democracy. By no stretch of the imagination have the Conservative Government honoured that commitment, but they have not withdrawn it. The majority of people involved in local government say that if this is freedom, roll on slavery.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I support the motion.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the


debate again, but earlier I asked about the women detained and kept as prisoners in a compound in Westminster Hall. They were described by police as prisoners and the press was refused access to them.
Are you, Mr. Speaker, in a position to make a statement having considered the position of the women who number about 70? Can you say why they were detained and what charges are to be levelled against them? Why was the press denied access to them? What about the 15 women who are still detained in the police station under Westminster Hall?

Mr. Speaker: I can inform the House that roughly 60 ladies who demonstrated in one part of this building have now left the premises. Those who interrupted from the Gallery are, as is customary with everyone who tries to stop the House functioning, detained. It is customary that people who interrupt our proceedings are detained until the House rises. I shall examine the issue once again, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I can add no greater detail tonight in reply to his point of order except to say that the ladies have now left the premises and that I was consulted earlier.

Miss Jo Richardson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be assured that the 15 women who are, I understand, to be detained until the rising of the House, will be given a cup of tea and a sandwich? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] One does not know when they last ate. It is fair to ask that question.

Mr. Speaker: I shall inquire whether the conditions are as they should be for people who are held in custody. I do not want the House to be under any illusions. It is an extremely serious offence to interrupt the proceedings of the House. If we give any encouragement to that type of thing, our future will be bleak indeed.

Mr. Shersby: I support the Bill. It is important for Londoners. I am only the second Member of Parliament who represents a London constituency to speak. I listened to the other—the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin)—with my customary interest. I always enjoy his speeches, but I did not feel that his heart was in it today or that he was fully supported by his colleagues when he protested about the curtailment of discussion on the Bill.
I am not a member of the Standing Committee. I understand that it has discussed the Bill for some 80 hours. It contains 12 clauses and I cannot believe that the Committee is unable to dispose of it in a reasonable time. Like other hon. Members who take a keen interest in transport matters in London, I hope to be able to say something on the Bill on Report.
The Bill is important to Londoners because it deals with the key issue of subsidies. It is intended to resolve doubts and clarify the position of metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council about transport subsidies. Transport subsidies are of interest to every Londoner—both those who live in outer London such as those whom I represent, and those who live in the centre. From my experience as a result of discussing the subject with my constituents, I believe that they are not so much interested in trivial changes in fares if those changes result in substantial increases in their rates. They are interested in a clarification of what is to happen with regard to subsidies following the Law Lords' decision as a result of the case that the London borough of Bromley brought against the GLC.
Two options face Londoners. They will face my constituents if the Bill is not dealt with speedily. The first is the possible return of some form of "Fares Fair" policy such as that which would still be in force in the Greater London council area if it had not been for the Law Lords' decision. That policy resulted in substantial increases in Londoners' rate bills. It also had a serious effect on commercial ratepayers in London. The policy failed before the courts, but many of us are aware that Londoners had to pay for the debts that accumulated as a result of it.
I am not sure that more people were encouraged to travel by public transport as a result of the "Fares Fair" policy. I believe that those who normally use London Transport made more journeys. Moreover, I do not believe that the number of cars using London's roads was reduced by a very great extent. The GLC's "Fairs Fair" policy was expensive business for London's ratepayers because of the lack of clarity which the Bill is designed to clear up. That is one reason why I am anxious that the subject should be cleared up.
The House should be aware that 62 per cent. Of the rates are paid by commercial ratepayers. The "Fairs Fair" policy would have quadrupled the London business rate bill in 1983. That is an increase of £182 million or the equivalent of the cost of at least 30,000 employees. That is extremely serious not only for dometic ratepayers in Hillingdon in my constituency but for small firms there and in other London boroughs. Those people and business must know where they are going. Until the matter is clarified by the present legislation, it is difficult for local authorities and London ratepayers to know what will happen.
The Bill will provide for sensible levels of subsidy to encourage planning and efficiency. It will also clarify matters relating to urban transportation. The 80 hours that the Standing Committee has taken to discuss clause 1 and a little part of clause 2 is too long. It is fair for hon. Members who do not have the honour of serving on that Committee to say that it is time for the Bill to be dispatched. One of my colleagues has told me that one hon. Member made a speech that lasted four hours. One can say a great deal in four hours. We are supposed, to meet your edict, Mr. Speaker, to confine our speeches to 10 minutes. I hope that I shall speak for not much more than that today and that in that time I shall have managed to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and, perhaps, some Opposition Members that the time has come for the Standing Committee to discharge its duty and get through this short 12-clause Bill and give other hon. Members who take a keen interest in the subject an opportunity to debate it.
The subject is important to my constituents because of the high level of fares that is the result of the mismanagement of London Transport and the obscurity of some of the statutes which resulted in last year's "Fares Fair" fiasco. I shall not use this debate as an opportunity to indulge in a lot of GLC bashing, but the Standing Committee has had adequate time to consider the Bill. I therefore support the motion in what I believe are the interests of parliamentary democracy. We should get on with the job so that the Bill can be debated on the Floor of the House on Report by other hon. Members.
I realise that hon. Members from other parts of the country and their constituents face problems that are different from those in London. No doubt we shall hear more about them on Report. It will be interesting. My plea


on behalf of Londoners to the Standing Committee is "Get on with the job, it is important to clarify the subject quickly".

Mr. Reg Race: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who represents a London constituency. I oppose the motion because as the only Labour Member of Parliament who represents a London constituency who served on the Standing Committee it is clear to me that those who support cheap fares policies in the GLC and in metropolitan counties should have the right to use Parliament for the purpose for which it was intended—to fight for equality and a decent deal for citizens. If we are discussing parliamentary democracy, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge did, it is vital that we have the opportunity to debate a Bill line by line and clause by clause. The motion prevents the elected representatives of the people from doing just that.
We have spent so long discussing clauses 1 and 2 because the Bill is extremely contentious. Much of it contains the Government's political views. The hon. Member for Uxbridge talked about the powers of the Greater London Council. What he said was a bit rich. The Conservative Party opposed the GLC's cheap fares policy. When the Conservatives lost the election and a democratically elected majority of Labour councillors was elected to county hall and sought to introduce their policy, what did the Conservatives do? They used not democratic, but political, methods, and went, through their Tory friends on Bromley council, to the courts. They sought to evade the results of democracy. In the Bill there is another attempt to evade democracy and to prevent discussion of a matter that is vital to 6½ million Londoners and the whole population of the metropolitan counties.
Not only democracy matters. The Bill is about cutting public transport subsidies and giving the Secretary of State power to say to local councils "You will not subsidise your public transport, although you were elected by a majority in your area so to do." That attack on local democracy cannot be covered up by the guillotine motion.
The guillotine motion has come from the same diseased minds that produced cuts in the National Health Service, social security expenditure, the housing programme and other social programmes. From the same diseased minds that gave us those attacks on the social wage we now have another attempt to stymie local authorities, which are elected by the people, from carrying out the functions that they are supposed to carry out and that they were given a mandate to carry out.
The motion will prevent us from discussing adequately where power lies in our democracy. Will it be with the local councils? Will it be with Parliament or with the courts? That is a crucial question, and the reason why the Secretary of State apparently introduced the Bill. We are told in the House that we have to legislate because the courts have muddied the waters and it is no longer clear what legal powers and authority the GLC has. That is an important question. No one can doubt it. Therefore, for the Secretary of State to try to rush through the other clauses that are of fundamental importance to the metropolitan counties and the GLC seems to be inviting retribution in the courts.
I believe that the Secretary of State will rue the day when he introduced the guillotine motion. By curtailing debate in Committee he will be prevented from removing the bugs in the Bill and will be confronted with a situation in which the courts will have to decide what the Bill means. If anyone in the Chamber has any doubt about the importance of that, let me quote the important words of Lord Denning in his judgment reported in the Weekly Law Reports on 15 January 1982. As we all know, Lord Denning was adjudicating on the case of Bromley London borough council versus the GLC. In his summing up on the application by Bromley he said:
I am of the opinion that the GLC had no power whatever to give instructions to the London Transport Executive as they purported to do. The leader"—
that is the leader of the GLC—
had no right whatever to go to Sir Peter Masefield and tell him to cut the fares by an overall 25 per cent.: nor had Sir Peter any business to accede to it. The council itself had no power to make resolutions to enforce a 25 per cent. cut. That was a completely uneconomic proposition done for political motives—for which there is no warrant—including the supplementary precept. It was beyond their powers. It is ultra vires and void. It cannot be allowed to stand.
There is more of that. I shall not bore the House by reading it out.
The important point about the guillotine motion is that it will prevent us from ensuring that the courts do not have to play the role that Lord Denning played in the judgment in January 1982. It is the people who are elected to the House and to local authorities all over the country who should determine by the political decisions that they make the extent of the subsidy to public transport. It is a scandal that the courts are involved in making such political judgments. It is not right that the courts should have to adjudicate on what are in essence matters of political dispute between political parties.
It is a principle in the Labour Party that we need to support by subsidy public transport because we believe that unless we do so there will be no public transport system to rely upon. There would be no concessions for pensioners and problems for the unemployed and others if the public transport system were to be cut. That is our proposition. The Conservative Party and the Government propose that the amount of subsidy to public transport should be strictly limited, in the interests of the ratepayers.
That is a matter for political discussion and debate. It should be the function of the local and national electorate to determine which view prevails—certainly not the courts. By introducing the guillotine motion the Secretary of State will ensure that there is more recourse to the courts in future than there ever has been in the history of public transport legislation. That view is shared not only by Opposition Members but by many Conservative Members.
It is not only on public transport that people come to the House for protection and guidance but on every issue, whether it be cruise missiles or National Health Service expenditure. People come to the House of Commons for a decision. It would be a scandal if the guillotine motion were to be passed tonight and if the Government were to get their way.
I make no apologies for having spoken for 2½ hours on behalf of London in Committee. I suspect strongly that if the hon. Member for Uxbridge had been a member of the Committee and was a member of the Opposition, he too would have made a long speech on behalf and in the interests of his constituents. It is vital that every member of a Committee should have the opportunity to raise


important issues that affect his constituents and the geographical area that he represents. It would be a disgrace if we did not have the opportunity to do that on the crunch clauses of the Bill from clause 3 onwards.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who claims, like the Bill, to be in favour of democracy, is prepared to support the Government trampling on the rights of Parliament and forcing through the Bill? However, he could vote for our amendment. He claims that he wants to speak on Report. Our amendment provides for two days' debate on Report instead of one, which would be an advantage. Why do not the Tories who claim to support democracy accept that amendment?

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the reason why the hon. Member for Uxbridge and his hon. Friends will not vote for the amendment is that they want to keep the Prime Minister's options open for an early general election. They do not want two days' debate on Report on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Shersby: I realise that the hon. Gentleman opposes the Bill and has strong views on it. I do not dispute the fact that he is doing what he believes is right in the interests of his constituents. However, I do not believe that prolonged discussion for the sake of discussion is in the interests of parliamentary democracy. It is far more desirable that the Committee should last for a reasonable period and that the Bill should come back to the House. A wider spectrum of hon. Members should have the opportunity to debate it. We do not need two days on Report.

Mr. Race: The hon. Member for Uxbridge has got it wrong. The reason for this guillotine motion and the reason why the Committee must report by 25 January is that the Government want to stop the GLC and the other metropolitan counties from cutting fares this year. If ratepayers and members of the public in the metropolitan counties thought that Santa Claus might give them cheaper fares for Christmas, they have another think coming. The Secretary of State's aim is to prevent those terrible local authorities, elected by the people, from cutting fares. His method is to introduce a guillotine motion to curtail debate and to pass the Bill before the beginning of the 1983–84 financial year. Any Conservative Member who supports the guillotine motion will be helping the Government to stop those local authorities from cutting fares this year. For that reason alone, we must oppose this disgraceful motion.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Having sat through most of the 80 hours of debate on the Bill in Committee, I should like to comment on one or two of the points that have been made today.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) seemed to suggest that when the Government put their manifesto commitments into legislation they have the right to insist, to curtail and to guillotine, but that they have no such right if what they are doing was not set out as a commitment in their manifesto. That cannot be right. A Government may run for live years. They have to deal with matters that could not possibly have been foreseen in the manifesto and on which there is deep division between the parties. The Government must conduct their business and get their business through in the ordinary way.
The right hon. Member for Deptford and others have complained that the White Paper and the Bill were published virtually together. I agree that that is not satisfactory, but we all know the reason for the Government's haste. They are afraid that the Greater London Council will try to reduce fares before the Government have time to stop it. If the Greater London Council were rather more deferential to the needs and wishes of Parliament, the haste with which the Bill has been brought forward would not have been necessary.
Opposition Members have complained that other metropolitan transport authorities have been roped into a Bill which is primarily designed to deal with London. If it is true—I do not think that it is—that other local authorities have been roped into the Bill without consultation, the reason is the way in which Mr. Ken Livingstone has acted. I imagine that Opposition Members must privately feel rather bitter about the consequences of the way in which Ken Livingstone has acted and intends to act.
The right hon. Member for Deptford asked who was to decide what was excessive. Somebody must decide. It was the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), when he was in a Labour Cabinet, who tried to stop the South Yorkshire authority subsidising local transport in his area at a far lower level than now. It was right for the Labour Cabinet to do that then, and it is right for this Government to take action now. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) gave the impression that the 80 hours that we spent in Committee were purgatory. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was enormous fun, and we should have welcomed the pleasure of his company for more of the time. We enjoyed that time, but everyone knows that it did not get us anywhere. The Committee's excellent Chairman kept us entirely in order, but it is perfectly possible to get bogged down on a road without ever leaving it, and that is exactly what happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), in a pleasingly frank speech, spoke of his opposition to the recent Northern Ireland Assembly legislation and of the way in which he and his hon. Friends succeeded in thwarting the Government at least for a while. As he said, the intention was to prevent the Bill ever becoming law, and he rightly saw the way in which the Opposition have handled the debates in Committee on the Transport Bill as evidence of the same intention to thwart the principle of the Bill and to prevent its becoming law.
I suppose that Oppositions always behave in that way and that Governments always protest. You, Mr. Speaker, and indeed right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, must have heard so often as to be bored by them the protests of new Back Benchers such as I that this cannot be the best way to conduct our affairs. The 80 hours of debate in Committee were perfectly futile. Both sides knew what it was all about. If we had been able to timetable the debate from the beginning, we might have had a constructive and useful debate and might already have changed the Bill. I regret the necessity to timetable the rest of the Bill now. Necessary though this guillotine motion is, I cannot believe that this is the best way to conduct our affairs.

Mr. Albert Booth: I must tell the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) that my judgment of the 80 hours of debate in Committee is


entirely different from his. To say that they were futile is to ignore the experience of the Committee in revealing serious defects in the Bill. Had those defects not been revealed, I doubt whether the Government would have spent part of the recess tabling amendments to meet our points, and, but for our debates on clause 1, I doubt whether the Government would have acknowledged that there was an error in the scope of the Bill.
The Leader of the House clearly has not read the report of our proceedings on clause 1, and to that extent I forgive him, but to say that so much time was spent merely on an interpretation clause ignores the fact that the Chairman ruled that only on amendments to that clause could we deal with the scope of the Bill—whether it should cover the whole country, metropolitan authorities, or merely the GLC. The Opposition are surely entitled to take a view on that. The Government have certainly taken a view on it. It would be a very strange Leader of the House whose concept of the parliamentary role was that the Opposition should not raise matters on which their view of the scope of the legislation differed markedly from that embraced by the Government in the legislation. I am sure that the Leader of the House did not intend to suggest that. Once the Chairman of the Committee in his wisdom had made that very proper ruling, it was inevitable that we should raise on clause 1 the serious issue whether the Bill was appropriate to the entire local government sector, including the shire counties, to metropolitan authorities, or to the GLC alone.
The Committee did not reach clause 2 as quickly as I have reached it in my speech today, but, when it did, it found that the Government's revenue definition on the important matter of the financial duties of the PTEs was wrong, because they failed to make proper provision for them when they made a surplus or had to make provision within their reserves.
No one who has studied the proceedings on the Government's previous Transport Bills will be surprised to know that out of proper consideration in Committee a whole range of amendments has emerged. On the last three major Transport Bills there have been long lists of amendments on Report and in the House of Lords to deal with matters raised in Committee. One of the victims of today's guillotine will be detailed consideration of that kind and the resulting list of amendments. We contend that every Bill requires careful consideration in Committee, but that this Bill requires it more than most.
The Secretary of State for Transport claimed that the Bill was needed to clarify legislation covering the rights of metropolitan authorities and of the GLC to conduct transport services, to deal with the situation arising from the judgment of the House of Lords and to deal with the situation arising from the Woolf judgment in the Merseyside case. Far from clarifying the position, amendments to the 1968 and 1969 Acts make it almost impossible to predict what the true legal powers of the metropolitan authorities and of the GLC will be.
A second reason why it is necessary to study the Bill in Committee with rather more care than other Bills, and with more care than will be possible under the guillotine, is that clause 5 has been proved to be a virtual invitation to test the powers of metropolitan authorities and the GLC in the courts in the important area of public transport administration.
The Woolf judgment highlighted the power of metropolitan authorities to direct their passenger transport executives to provide services. The Bill will destroy the one point on which the law is crystal clear. It is repealing section 15(3) of the Transport Act 1968, on which a large part of the Woolf judgment was founded. There has to be a right vested in passenger transport authorities to instruct their executives to provide services. Once that right is removed, there is no telling what judgment will be provided.
When considering the 1969 Act, which did not contain the equivalent provisions of section 15(3), five eminent Law Lords had very different views on the GLC's power. The result is that the GLC has said that the law must be changed, but the metropolitan authorities have said "We can live with the Woolf judgment. That makes our position clear." The Government have not accepted that, and they are hell-bent on destroying the clarity for the metropolitan authorities.
In Committee, the Bill has been shown to disrupt the transport planning that is taking place in metropolitan areas. The three-year rule, involving planning provision, is to be set aside. It is to be set aside in the first year of the Bill's operation. This will happen on the diktat of the Secretary of State, and it will destroy the longer term plans of the metropolitan authorities.
The claim by the Government, that the Bill will make it easier to identify the cost benefit of subsidies, has been revealed as a total sham. The so-called protected expenditure level, not defined as such in the Bill, has been virtually determined by the Secretary of State without any proper debate with the metropolitan authorities, and without any attempt to identify with them the cost benefit of the plans that they are proposing. They will face figures which will be set without any cost-benefit analysis.
We believe that the protected expenditure level has been determined merely to sustain a Tory myth and to endorse Conservative monetarist prejudice about what the figures should be rather than to examine in any intelligent way proper planning and benefits to be gained from adopting financial policies for public transport which have been developed from the hard experience gained by the metropolitan authorities. The Committee proceedings are necessary to consider the extent to which the Bill will improperly curtail the powers of local government. It is an intrusion into local democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) recognised the Government's right to implement the Conservative Party's manifesto by taking legislation through the House. The Bill is taking from metropolitan authorities and from the GLC their right to implement their manifestos. If a democratically elected Parliament stands for anything, it should stand for a sensitive appreciation of the balance of power between one elected body and another.

Mr. Cohen: The electorate in a city such as Leeds, with a population of half a million, requires some right to say what should happen in the city. It is being deprived of that right by those who were elected on the basis of supporting the rights of local authorities.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend has effectively endorsed the point that I would make. The curtailment of full Committee proceedings is converting some Conservative Members on the Committee to our point of view. That is


one of the reasons why the Government are now coming forward with a guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) quoted a Conservative Member on the Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) said things in Committee which hardly accord with the judgment that he reached in his speech today. He said:
The Bill would enlarge the policy-making and planning role of non-elected passenger transport executives and reduce that of the metropolitan councils".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7 December 1982; c. 198.]
More significant was the contribution of the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), who accepted that local elections are often not decided on local issues. That may be so. If local issues do not matter, we may as well abolish local elections and local authorities altogether. It seems that the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port had more influence than he thought at that time because the Government are now considering abolishing metropolitan authorities and their elections.
The Government have not had the courage to legislate for authorities which are carrying out their election manifestos. They have not provided in the Bill for public transport authorities to expand in a way which is not favoured by the Secretary of State. The Bill will put local authorities at risk of legal challenge and of a surcharge. The courts will be left to take decisions on the effective scope of metropolitan services instead of allowing Parliament and local authorities to determine their proper transport policies.

Mr. Cryer: The alternative is for fares increases to be imposed by the local authorities at the determination of this Tory Government.

Mr. Booth: That is the alternative.
A further two and a half days in Committee will be hopelessly inadequate. We shall have to skimp or abandon many of the amendments which were tabled on behalf of metropolitan authorities. This guillotine motion is an attack on our rights to represent those authorities. More importantly, its purpose is to expedite the Government's policy for which they have no electoral mandate. It is a denial of the rights of those who would implement policies that have been fully endorsed at local elections. Therefore, I call upon the House to reject the motion.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I should have more sympathy with the rather low-key and muted opposition that we have heard this afternoon to the Government's timetable motion if I did not have before me the facts of what has occurred in Committee so far, and a recent memory of it as well.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President has reminded the House that 80½ hours were taken to cover one clause and some of the amendments to the second clause. I make no criticism of that. There were undoubtedly some very long speeches. Some of the finest speeches in the history of the House have been very long. However, the facts are worth reporting. During the 80½ hours there were six speeches of more than two hours. On one occasion we were treated by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) to an oration of four hours and twenty minutes. The Committee admired the breadth of his interests and the wide range of subjects which, within the rules of order, he brought to bear in arguing his

case. Perhaps the only sour note was struck by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who condemned his hon. Friend for being too brief and failing to get to the meat of the argument.
The subjects that were mobilised and touched upon within the rules of order—at times the Chairman rightly called him to order—included journeys to the moon, the views held in Manchuria on transport policy and the problems of the British film industry. There were a variety of comments on different methods of swimming and swimming techniques. These topics were recognised to be within order and admitted and the Committee listened to them. That is sufficient to show that the matters contained in the first clause and part of the second clause were covered intensively.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who was responsible for what he described as taking place in the House on one occasion is now in another place? He was one of the active members of the Franks committee. There is probably a chance of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) becoming a member of the committee.

Mr. Howell: I do not know what the fates have in store for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central but I am sure that he listened to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
The right hon. Members for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and the Opposition generally know that the law had to be changed. They know that the new legal framework must be in place by the end of March for the new financial year. The issue is not confined to the Bromley judgment, although the GLC has repeatedly called publicly in many pronouncements for an
immediate and overriding need to amend the 1969 Act
and
a desperate need for a change in the law.
Labour Members have repeatedly recognised the extent of conflicting legal interpretations governing the administration and provision of local government transport subsidy throughout the country. It is absurd to say—this has been stated by the right hon. Member for Deptford and some of his hon. Friends—that there is no need for the Bill. The law is not crystal clear and Labour Members who have said that it is have contradicted themselves when illustrating the ambiguities and the conflicting legal judgments that have been flying around.
Labour Members know that a Bill is needed, but the Bill that has been introduced is not one that they want. That is a case for amending it, not for seeking to kill it, bearing in mind that it was approved on Second Reading by a large majority.
I and the Government are chided because when consultation was offered to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the metropolitan authorities themselves some months before the Bill was published it was turned down flat. Officials wrote to fix dates and details when these matters could be pursued. That was done at both elected member level and official level. For reasons that were quite wrong, an edict went out from the AMA that there was to be no discussion with the Government and Government officials on the details of the Bill.
Labour Members have asked why the Bill is needed now. The subsidy pattern that is indicated in the transport


plans that have been issued by the metropolitan authorities is one that is about to explode upwards. Transport subsidy for current operations in the metropolitan counties has doubled in the past three years. On the basis of their plans for next year, it would have increased by another 75 per cent. That would have had a catastrophic effect on rates and on jobs. We have not heard very much about the effect of high rates on jobs, which would be extremely serious. Such rating would be bound to provoke further legal challenge. That is another reason why it is essential to bring forward the proposed legislation.
We have heard much about local democracy from Labour Members and about the need for local authorities to use ratepayers' money as they will. But who provides that ratepayers' money? My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has reminded us that 62 per cent. of the ratepayers' funds for Greater London come from business. Business is an easy target. It can be taxed without having a vote. Business pays the lion's share, but it does not have the vote. Labour Members should bear that in mind when they lecture us on local democracy.
The Bill provides a framework for responsible planning and subsidy, which on a sensible and balanced level the Government welcome. The Bill will help towards more efficient local transport and authorities remain free to decide whether to use the protection of the Bill. It is they who make the final decisions on the level of grant and whether to step outside the protection that the Bill offers in a way that did not exist in the past.
It is right to say that sensible discussion has not been helped by what can be described only as some grossly misleading propaganda that has been put forward outside the House, often in the form of extremely expensive advertising and often at the ratepayers' expense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) said in a good letter in The Times, substantial sums have been spent in putting forward propaganda which is based on false and inaccurate information. That is a serious matter that ratepayers should have drawn closely to their attention.
This false propaganda has claimed that urban transport is being starved of resources under this Government. The facts are quite different. Support for the current operations of local authority transport is higher in real terms under this Government than ever it was under the previous Labour Government. The propaganda has suggested that local control is threatened. The slogan has been used "Keep local transport local". The fact is that local control is not threatened by the Bill. The local authorities remain free to decide the level of subsidy and to plan their local transport. If they wish to pursue a course that lands them in the courts, they are free to do so. The protected expenditure level provides a far greater area of certainty than authorities have had in the past. That has been recognised by those who have studied the Bill and by some of the major transport authorities.
There is a third matter that Labour Members have raised. It has also been raised in a false and misleading way outside the House. It is suggested that the Bill will remove or threaten the concessions that are provided for the old or disabled who travel on buses and other transport. Labour Members know perfectly well that it will not touch on the concessions for the old and disabled.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he is making exactly the same statements about the Bill not having an effect on pensioners and others in receipt of concessions that he made following the House of Lords judgment, when he was assisted by the Solicitor-General? Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman were proved completely wrong, and within two months the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill to put right what he said had not gone wrong in the first place.

Mr. Howell: That is not correct. It is correct that the Government introduced a Bill to safeguard concessions for the old in London. It was rightly introduced and it was very welcome.
Nothing illustrates better the cynical nature of the attack that has been mounted on the Bill than the dissemination of the utterly false and alarmist information that has been put around. Labour Members who have raised the issue of concessions and caused worry to the elderly on a false basis should think carefully before proceeding on that line of propaganda.
There are many important details to discuss in the Bill. It is a short Bill, but it deals with important issues governing the legality of subsidy and the difficulties arising from the various legal judgments last year, particularly the Bromley judgment against the GLC.
I hope that the House will permit the Committee, and then the House on Report, to consider seriously the remaining aspects of the Bill. I hope those will include the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) about clause 11, which deals with matters related to the support of the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. They are important and should be discussed in full. The Bill needs to be looked at in detail. The Government's timetable motion will allow that to happen.
So far we have had an extended debate which plainly has not departed from the proper road of order, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said, it has taken us deep into the quagmire and near the ditch several times as we tried to proceed.
I now confidently ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and others, who wish to see a better, more stable and balanced pattern in local transport, to support the guillotine motion and get this valuable measure on to the statute book where it belongs.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 248.

Division No. 38]
[7.22 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Best, Keith


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Blackburn, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Body, Richard


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Bendall, Vivian
Brinton, Tim


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon






Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Brotherton, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heddle, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Henderson, Barry


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hordern, Peter


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant


Clegg, Sir Walter
Godman


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Corrie, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Costain, Sir Albert
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Critchley, Julian
King, Rt Hon Tom


Crouch, David
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Latham, Michael


Dover, Denshore
Lawrence, Ivan


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lee, John


Durant, Tony
Le Marchant, Spencer


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Elliott, Sir William
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
Loveridge, John


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McCrindle, Robert


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Fell, Sir Anthony
MacGregor, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Major, John


Fox, Marcus
Marland, Paul


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawby, Ray


Gardner, Sir Edward
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry
Moore, John


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mudd, David


Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Gummer, John Selwyn
Myles, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John





Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stan brook, Ivor


Osborn, John
Stanley, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steen, Anthony


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stevens, Martin


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Parris, Matthew
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stokes, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Percival, Sir Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Donald


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wakeham, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rost, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Walters, Dennis


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Wickenden, Keith


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Carol Mather and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Robert Boscawen


NOES


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis


Adams, Allen
Cant, R. B.


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil


Alton, David
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clarke, Thomas('C'b'dge, A'rie)


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cohen, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin F.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cowans, Harry


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crowther, Stan


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davidson, Arthur


Brown, R. C. (N' castle W)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric


Campbell, Ian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
McMahon, Andrew


Douglas, Dick
McNally, Thomas


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnett, Jack
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Magee, Bryan


Eastham, Ken
Marks, Kenneth


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maxton, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian


Field, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fitch, Alan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ford, Ben
Molyneaux, James


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Newens, Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Ginsburg, David
O'Halloran, Michael


Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Park, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Penhaligon, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Race, Reg


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Homewood, William
Richardson, Jo


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Horam, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hoyle, Douglas
Robertson, George


Huckfield, Les
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Ryman, John


John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sever, John


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Leighton, Ronald
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Stallard, A. W.


McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strang, Gavin





Straw, Jack
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Williams. Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Tilley, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Tinn, James
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Torney, Tom
Winnick, David


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Wright, Sheila


Wardell, Gareth
Young, David (Bolton E)


Weetch, Ken



Wellbeloved, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael
Mr. George Morton and


White, Frank R.
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 25th January 1983.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted day

7. —(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall he added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Transport Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Local Government (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,: That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
The House received notice as long ago as 28 July of the general approach which I propose to adopt to this settlement. Details of my final proposals were set out fully in the report on the order, which was laid on 15 December. I do not therefore propose this evening to take the time of the House on a detailed recital of the provisions in the order, all of which are printed anyway in the order and its accompanying memorandum, but it may help hon. Members if I give a brief summary of the main features. Thereafter, I should like to deal in detail with some of the main issues that arise from this settlement.
The key to any RSG settlement is the level of relevant expenditure assumed by the Government and commended to authorities. For 1983–84 the expenditure total is £3,118 million. This is the first occasion on which it has exceeded the £3 billion mark. The magnitude of this sum illustrates both the importance of the services and the need for expenditure control by all concerned with local authorities.
Discounting loan charges and similar items, relevant expenditure amounts to £2,660 million. That represents an increase of over 9 per cent. on the corresponding planning figure that we allowed for in 1982–83. This is well above the rate of inflation. Taking that into account, it implies a reduction of only about 3 to 4 per cent. from the level of expenditure that was actually planned by local authorities for 1982–83. This seems to me to be a very generous provision to make, given the economic difficulties that we face. I think that it strikes a very good balance between the aspirations of local authorities and the need for reductions in the national economic interest. The order makes provision for aggregate grant of £1,924·25 million. That is an increase of 3·5 per cent. over the 1982–83 figure.
I have no doubt that some will be critical of the fact that the grant expressed as a percentage of relevant expenditure is lower than it was last year. However, the primary objective of the lower rate of grant is to secure reductions in expenditure and not to transfer burdens.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will no doubt recall that he also adopted the device of cutting grant as a means of reducing expenditure. Between 1975–76 and 1977–78, grant was reduced from 75 to 68·5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman is quoted in a press article on 1 December 1981 as having written:
Central Government already had effective weapons which they could use to try to influence the level of council spending—like reducing the percentage of rate support grant.
Hon. Members will have noted that, as before, the actual rate of grant in Scotland proposed for 1983–84 of 61·7 per cent. is considerably more than the grant in England of 52·8 per cent. The difference is longstanding and Opposition Members will be aware that it arises from three important factors.
Differences in the composition of relevant expenditure—for instance in the treatment of rate fund contributions to housing—are included in relevant expenditure in England but not in Scotland. The other

factors are the comparatively lower level of rating resources in Scotland and the comparatively higher level of need in Scotland.
Approximately £180 million will be distributed as specific grants in support of expenditure on specific services. The balance of £1,744·25 million will be distributed as rate support grant. The arrangements for grant distribution have been extensively discussed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which agrees with my proposals to maintain domestic relief at 3p in the pound, the same level as in 1982–83, and to allocate the balance between the needs and resources elements in the ratio of 7:1.
The resources element will be distributed in accordance with the arrangements laid down by statute. Provision is made in the needs element for continuation of special assistance towards oil-related expenditure, and a small part of the needs element will be distributed among regional and islands councils in accordance with the incidence of youth unemployment in their areas. There is also special provision for the protection of low spending authorities against the effects of the £27 million general abatement of grant, which I had to make most reluctantly in response to the planned overspending for 1982–83.
As a result, no authority spending within the guidelines will lose any grant and no authority will lose more in grant than its excess over the guidelines. Otherwise, the needs element will be distributed in accordance with the demographic formula, which is designed to recognise local differences in expenditure needs.
Provision is made for additional grant amounting to about £1 million to Orkney Islands council to ease the effect on that authority of the order laid before the House today which provides for the derating of certain external plant and machinery.
Provision is also made for a modest increase in the total grant payable to district councils to help them meet expenditure on certain functions which they are to assume from regional councils under the provisions of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. The amount that is transferred is necessarily an estimate, since the transfer of functions does not become effective until 1 April and some decisions have yet to be made. This is therefore a transitional year. However, I look to authorities to undertake the new responsibilities in a spirit of cooperation, striking a reasonable balance between the need for economy and the interests of the bodies concerned with the arts.

Mr. Jim Craigen: How much has this Stodart exercise cost local government?

Mr. Younger: The Stodart exercise is very much wider than that which I have mentioned, but if the hon. Gentleman would like a precise figure for that exercise, I shall try to obtain it.

Mr. Donald Dewar: If the Secretary of State is making such parade of virtue in giving extra allowance for the transfer of functions in accordance with the Stodart plan, why is it that the district council guidelines have remained exactly the same as those for last year?

Mr. Younger: I was just about to mention that. It has arisen because of the balance of the expenditure on the various services, some of which are regional and some district functions. That is all well explained in the order.
If authorities plan for expenditure reasonably in line with the level assumed in the settlement, there should be no need for substantial rate increases. The average increase should certainly be within the overall rate of inflation. However, I do not propose to put a precise figure on the average, which will depend on the moderation shown by individual authorities.
The right hon. Member for Craigton may be inclined to agree with my caution this year, bearing in mind the extraordinary inaccuracy of his forecast last year. He said to the House during the debate on the 1982–83 order:
I should be astonished if the overall increase in rates in 1982–83 is not over 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. I stand by that figure."—[Official Report, 10 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 992.]
The actual figure, instead of being 20 to 25 per cent., was 12·3 per cent.—the right hon. Gentleman was about 100 per cent. wrong—and it would have been much lower had the authorities followed our advice on expenditure levels.
I shall try to deal with the remarks that have been made by many people recently which, generally speaking, give the impression that practically everything that one can think of in local authority expenditure has been cut again and again, that services everywhere have been slashed to the extent that they are hardly worth having and that there has been hardship and deprivation all round. Most of that is absolute rubbish.
I have recently reviewed the figures that have been achieved in recent years during consultations with the convention. They show that, at constant prices, expenditure by authorities rose in three successive years from 1977–78 to a peak in 1980–81. In real terms, the figures are £2,351 million for 1978–79, £2,403 million for 1979–80, £2,457 million for 1980–81 and the provisional figure for 1981–82 is £2,429 million, which is a slight reduction. However, it is the second highest total ever produced by a long way. Against that background, talk about slashed services and dreadful hardship everywhere is plainly nonsense. Provisional returns show a modest reduction between 1980–81 and 1981–82, but the figure for the latter year remains significantly above the level in 1977–78, a year in which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for such matters. He did not believe then that services were being slashed or that people were suffering terrible hardship.

Mr. John Maxton: What would the reduction have been had local authorities obeyed the right hon. Gentleman's commands and not ignored them, as they have rightly done during the past few years?

Mr. Younger: Had they obeyed our instructions, it would have been extremely satisfactory and the authorities would be in a much better position today. But, alas, that has not been the case, which is a source of great disappointment to me and to many others.
Economies have been made by some authorities during the past three years. That has been attributable in some cases to the vigorous action taken by the Government in 1981 and 1982 and in other cases to the sheer good sense of the authorities concerned. But it is nonsense to claim that the events of the past three years have left no scope for further reductions. The job of bringing about the reductions that are required in the national economic interest must still be done.
This analysis is strongly supported by the evidence of the staffing figures returned by authorities. During the past year local authority staff numbers in Scotland have fallen

by just under 2 per cent., an encouraging development following the continual upward trend shown previously. But the reduction is entirely attributable to a fall in the number of manual staff and those employed in the education service. Even in education the percentage reduction has been less than the fall in the school population. The net effect is that the numbers of non-manual staff other than teachers and lecturers have increased over the year. There are 5,000 more than in 1979 and 10,000 more than in 1977. This again makes absolute nonsense of the idea that all services have been slashed to a disastrous level and that nothing is happening as a result. That is clearly rubbish.
Clearly there is scope for substantial reductions without reducing the standard of service to an unacceptable extent. Past experience, especially when authorities as a whole made substantial cuts in staff numbers in response to pressure exerted by the previous Administration, of which the right hon. Member for Craigton was a member, in 1977–78, indicates that sensible economies can be made without recourse to large-scale redundancies. I very much hope that all authorities in Scotland will undertake a searching review of their manpower policies. This is exactly what we in central Government have been doing since we took office. In the Scottish Office, for example, staff has been cut by over 7 per cent., or by over 13 per cent. if one excludes the prison service and the State hospital.
The implications of these trends in expenditure and staffing have of course been extensively discussed during the consultations with the convention which preceded the settlement. Of course it is true that not all differences have been resolved in the course of consultations, and of course the convention has criticised the settlement in a circular letter to hon. Members. However, I must reject any impression which may have been put about that we have failed to consult or to respond to reasonable arguments advanced in the course of the consultations. For example, I have listened carefully to the points put to me by the convention concerning the difficulty that authorities would experience in bringing down their expenditure to the level proposed for 1983–84 in last year's public expenditure White Paper. On 28 July I announced that the level originally proposed would be enhanced by £120 million. I announced a further increase by £21 million when I met the convention on 10 December. In addition, I was able to add £4 million to the relevant expenditure figure, reflecting my expectation after discussion with the convention that fees for further education courses at local authority colleges would be brought into line with those charged by central institutions.
I was also able to meet the views of the convention to a large extent in the arrangements for distributing grant in 1983–84, in particular by maintaining the ratio of the needs to the resources element of 1:7 and in giving high priority to stability of grant in the arrangements for the distribution of needs element. As hon. Members will be aware, the prompt and decisive action taken by the Government in introducing the Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Act 1982, in response to representations from the convention about the prospective loss of rate income which would otherwise have resulted from a court decision concerning the valuation of plant and machinery producing heat, light and first motive power, was welcomed by all concerned. I was grateful for the Opposition's support in that matter. Of course differences


must remain, but I am sure that the House should be aware that a constructive dialogue between central and local government has been maintained and that I gave due weight to the advice of the convention, wherever possible, in framing the proposals for the settlement.
A further feature of the past year has been the enactment of the provisions in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 enabling me to require the reduction in the rate poundage levied by an authority planning for excessive and unreasonable expenditure. These provisions extended section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, as amended in 1981, under which the authority had discretion to cut the rate poundage as an alternative to a reduction in rate support grant.
I should not wish to go over the ground that was covered so extensively during the passage of the 1981 and 1982 measures, but I should like to comment on one criticism that is persistently made from the Opposition Benches. These are reasonable powers, which represent an extension of provisions that have been on the statute book for more than 50 years. Their main purpose is to ensure that action can be taken in the interests of the ratepayer at an earlier stage than was possible under the original provisions. I do not accept that the constitutional relationship between central and local government has been altered at all by these measures. They need not be used if authorities as a whole plan for moderate levels of expenditure. It is open to any authority against which action is initiated to avoid grant loss or an imposed rate reduction by moderating its plans.
These points are well illustrated by the use made of the powers in 1982. Action was initiated against two authorities, Lothian regional council and Stirling district council. In both cases I was able to suspend action when the authorities agreed to make substantial cuts in planned expenditure and to pass the benefits back to the ratepayer. The outcome was very successful. Stirling district council reduced its rates so that its ratepayers had a rates freeze for 1982–83. In Lothian the electorate had the opportunity to make their views known and, as the loss of control by Labour showed, their view was clear. Lothian ratepayers then benefited from a substantial rates reduction of 16p in the pound.
I have this year continued the practice started by Opposition Members of issuing current expenditure guidelines. These figures are intended to help authorities plan their expenditure in accordance with the Government's plans. The guidelines have recently been the subject of much discussion and comment, largely because we decided last year to move to a method of calculation that was both open and systematic, in contrast to the approach that we inherited on assuming office, under which more arbitrary figures were issued with virtually no information to authorities about the basis of the calculations. I welcome the exchanges that we have had with the convention on this subject, and I look forward to further discussion in future years.
Under the system introduced last year, the guidelines are based on a systematic analysis of expenditure patterns by service and sub-service. Details of the system have been fully explained to authorities. They will shortly be receiving, as they did last year, the detailed workings for each service. Of course, I recognise that in dealing openly

with authorities on matters of this kind there are risks that those who favour a free-for-all in local authority expenditure will seek to discredit this system by distorting the information that we make available. However, that is a risk that I must take. The system is sound. I am confident that the figures that it is producing constitute a valuable aid to all authorities, except the few which are determined not to co-operate with the Government's economic policy. My purpose in dealing openly with the convention is to provide it with a full opportunity to contribute to that process. I very much hope that it will continue to respond positively.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Secretary of State address himself to the crisis facing national arts bodies in Scotland as a result of the irresponsible attitude adopted by a number of local authorities, not least the Lothian regional council? Will he say a word about that and give an indication of the Government's determination to protect such bodies?

Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern in this connection. As he will have seen, we have taken notice of the difficulties that are involved. I do not believe that the alarm that he has expressed is quite as serious as it might have been. The Government have increased their cash grant to the Scottish Arts Council by 7 per cent., so that the Scottish Arts Council will be in a position to make commitments about £1 million above the 1982–83 level. The Scottish Arts Council will also receive a further £500,000 in the current year from the Arts Council of Great Britain's supplementary grant of £5 million recently announced. I hope that those local authorities that are not making due provision for the arts will look again at their plans and bear in mind how serious it would be if the arts were not adequately supported.
Two further points are worth making about the 1983–84 figures. First, not all the expenditure provision has been allocated to guidelines. A total of £120 million has been withheld from the guidelines, so that individual authorities have been set very stringent targets. I should have much preferred to avoid doing that, but it has been forced upon me by the failure of authorities so far to cut their spending. Experience suggests that budgets will exceed guidelines. The guidelines for 1983–84 make some allowance for this, so that even with a modest excess over the guidelines total planned expenditure will still be within the target. We have already tried a wide range of measures to encourage moderation, and I believe that this new approach is well worth trying in 1983–84.
Second, district councils have the same guidelines as last year. We had planned in the public expenditure White Paper for a reduction in district council services. However, the proposed reduction was offset by a transfer from provision for regional council services, which was made to match the transfer of functions for which provision was made in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act. The total planning figure for district council services was therefore the same as last year, and to avoid undue fluctuations from year to year the guidelines are unchanged. The only exception to this is where some authorities will see an apparent reduction in their guidelines because for 1984–85 we have removed the urban programme from guidelines.
I know that there has been some misunderstanding about the methods that we have adopted in dealing with


this highly technical aspect of the settlement and that some concern has been voiced on behalf of individual authorities. However, let me assure the House that for 1983–84 the guidelines remain, as they have always been, indicative only. Withholding £120 million from guidelines has no effect on entitlement to grant, and this unallocated margin will be fully taken into account when local authorities' budget estimates are compared with the target figure. If authorities keep total expenditure reasonably in line with the settlement assumption, there should be no need for action to cut grant, whether by selective reductions or by general abatement. I am confident that the guidelines will be of considerable assistance to all authorities disposed to plan expenditure on that sensible basis.
Of course, the last few years have been difficult ones for everyone in local government. The country has battled its way through the worst recession any of us can remember. Everyone—those in business, families and individuals too—has had to play a part in that fight. I have sought to encourage local government to play its part by reducing its expenditure too and to do so early enough to avoid too much difficulty. One can take the view that local government should always increase its spending—spending more every year than in the previous year. That is the clear implication of what many Labour Members are saying. However, that is not the view of the ratepayers and taxpayers who provide every penny that councils spend. If they can make savings and cut spending in their businesses, why cannot local government play its part in doing the same?
It is against that background that we must see the achievement that we have made so far—stopping the spending increasing at a rate that no one can afford. So far from being unduly harsh, I and the Government have literally leant over backwards to make that task less difficult. [Interruption.] We have twice enhanced the planning figures to make it less difficult for authorities to reach their figures. We have made every effort to warn local authorities in good time that reductions were coming so that they could be made in good time with less difficulty. Indeed, on several occasions—my ministerial colleagues will support me on this—I had to look at savings within my programmes at the Scottish Office to make it slightly less difficult for local authorities to meet the targets which some had not made much effort to do.
This has been a difficult period, but the vast majority of people in local government have been doing their best to change habits which have gone on for a long time and have at last begun to bring spending under control. It is against that background that I hope the order will be seen, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Secretary of State's bland account of his relationships with the local authorities will be completely unrecognisable to any hon. Member who met the representatives of CoSLA today and heard expressed in the most vigorous terms their extreme anger and bitterness about the way in which they have been dealt with by the Secretary of State, not only this year but in previous years as well. That was an anger expressed by some people on his side of the political fence as well as by others who are politically opposed to him.
I want to make two particular points before turning to the main substance of the debate. First, the timing of the

debate this evening has not followed the rather more agreeable and desirable arrangements that we made last year. That is particularly serious for the housing support grant debate which will start at a late hour. That order, which will be dealt with by my hon. Friends later, represents a tremendous slashing of Government support to housing in Scotland and it is not good enough that that should be dealt with late in the evening, as it inevitably will be.
Secondly, the order on derating of external plant and machinery, which the Secretary of State mentioned, has been laid today, and I have just seen it. I shall not go into detail on that because we shall be able to have a separate debate on it. However, it is typical of the way in which the Secretary of State consults local authorities and listens to their representations that when they ask him, as indeed did the CBI, whether central Government could bear the burden of this derating rather than that it should be spread over the rest of the ratepayers in Scotland, he should do exactly the opposite. He has done that despite all his promises at various times during the passage of the main legislation that all was under consideration—something we did not believe for one moment. The rest of the ratepayers, including, let it be said, the industrial ratepayers represented by the CBI, are paying for this external derating of plant and machinery and we shall go into that betrayal of the Secretary of State's promise when we debate that order.
I shall inevitably be repeating the kind of criticisms that we have made in earlier years on previous rate support grant orders. First, the consultation has been a farce. This year it has been an even greater farce, because most of the details were announced to the House in July before the Secretary of State had met the local authorities. The Secretary of State has again set unrealistic expenditure levels. In past years he has assumed unrealistic inflation rates as well. The guidelines are simply unattainable by the vast majority of local authorities. He has continued the cuts in the previous rate of grant and he is continuing with the penalties on local authorities. The net result of all that over the years is that we in Scotland are paying a high rates bill and at the same time suffering from poorer services.
Before I mention the expenditure levels of 1983–84, let me look briefly at what happened in 1982–83, because this order contains a penalty provision for that year. The Secretary of State has earlier stated that the authorities overbudgeted by about £200 million in 1982–83 compared with the guidelines, or about 8·3 per cent. As it has turned out, the actual figure according to CoSLA is £182 million, rather less than £200 million, but no less than £47 million of that has been taken up with extra inflation which was not provided for in the Secretary of State's order last year. Therefore, the real overbudgeting has been about £135 million and it is on that figure that the penalty of £27 million is being made in the current year.
Let me say again that we are against the penalty provisions in the current legislation and that we therefore completely oppose this penalty which is being imposed virtually on the whole of Scotland's local authorities, with one or two exceptions, such as those authorities which will obtain refunds based exclusively on the guidelines that the Secretary of State says are only indicative and are not taken into account for any substantial purpose. Yet that particular refund to certain local authorities, in Scotland which is in any case minor, is being based exclusively on their performance in relation to the guidelines. I shall


demonstrate later that the guidelines for most authorities are absolutely absurd. The Opposition are opposed to penalties and also to the way in which the guidelines have been used by the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman virtually boasted this afternoon that he had increased the amount of relevant expenditure on which he proposes to pay grant in 1983–84. For past rate support grant orders the relevant expenditure has been so completely out of line with local authority budgets and expenditure that the Secretary of State has added something to it to bring it nearer to the true figure—but at the same time he has reduced the rate of grant by about 2½ per cent. Rather remarkably and miraculously, the amount of grant payable is the same as it would have been had he not added £120 million to the relevant expenditure and had paid the rate of grant for 1983–84 at the same level as 1982–83. His generosity is not really generosity—he has increased one figure and reduced another to reach the original figure. The £120 million is not included in the guidelines, so there is no prospect of local authorities achieving their targets.
The Secretary of State had the impertinence to claim that there has been no great slashing of services by local authorities. He quoted the expenditure figures for the past few years but he did not say that in every case the figures were significantly more—about 7 or 8 per cent.—than the Secretary of State had said that local authorities should spend to meet his guidelines. There have been poor services but no slashing of services, because local authorities sensibly acted in the interests of their ratepayers and electors by not following the right hon. Gentleman's injunctions. They preserved a reasonable level of services. If they had followed his guidelines, there would have been a disastrous reduction in services in Scotland. I shall give the House figures to demonstrate that point later.
It is typical of the Secretary of State's dishonesty that, while he asks local authorities to slash their services, when they do not obey him he takes credit for the fact that the services are reasonably maintained.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman favour us with more of the predictions by which he stands and tell us by how much we must discount them to bring them nearer to reality?

Mr. Millan: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's speech, when he will no doubt describe the slashing of services that will take place in the Lothian region that is now under the control of his friends. I hope that he will defend that policy rather than make pathetic statements to the press, as he did during the weekend.
Figures have been produced by CoSLA, and I challenge the Secretary of State to disown them or to show any inaccuracy. What would be the position in 1983–84 if local authorities simply budgeted for the same amount of expenditure as in 1982–83 but updated the figure to take account of the Secretary of State's figures for inflation? Even on that figure, the result would be a reduction in services in real terms of between 3 and 4 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that figure in his speech—[Interruption.] I see that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has decided not to join us. This subject is obviously rather beyond the Social Democratic Party.
If the local authorities obeyed the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State, the regions would have to reduce their expenditure in 1983–84 by 7·2 per cent. in real terms and the districts would have to reduce their expenditure by 11·8 per cent. in real terms. In Scotland as a whole, there would have to be a reduction in expenditure of 7·8 per cent. in real terms in 1983–84. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State has not a hope of that happening. It would mean the wholesale slashing of essential services in Scotland.
The district guidelines for 1983–84 again rather miraculously turn out to be exactly the same as those for 1982–83, down to the last pound. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State seems to dispute that. Perhaps he would like to correct me.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The figures show that there have been one or two adjustments. It is not correct to say that they are the same as the figures for 1982–83, down to the last pound.

Mr. Millan: Although additional burdens have been placed on the districts because of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act, and although there will inevitably be inflation in 1983–84, the figures—which are meant to be built up district by district and service by service—are exactly the same in 1983–84 as they were in 1982–83. I have the figures in front of me. That point is confirmed in the Secretary of State's circular to the local authorities dated 26 November 1982. The circular confirms that the figures for the district have not been changed in 1983–84, despite what the Under-Secretary of State has said.
It is a farce to give the individual figures for each service and district. At the end of the day, the figures are exactly the same as those given for each district in 1982–83. In addition, the guideline figures for the districts bear no relation to the figures that are laboriously built up, on a needs basis, by considering individual services at district level. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) will be interested to know, the representative from that area complained bitterly this afternoon that, although the needs figure was £6·5 million, the guideline figure is only £5·5 million.
There are other discrepancies. There is a discrepancy of £15 million between the needs and the guideline figures for Glasgow. At least the discrepancy is in the right direction from Glasgow's point of view. The needs figures either mean something or they do not. If they are calculated carefully and on the scientific basis that they are meant to be calculated on according to the Scottish Office, the guideline figures should coincide with the needs figures. But they bear no relation to the needs figures and are wholly artificial. They are based on exactly the same figures as in 1982–83. As every district knows, they are a mess and a farce.
The same anomalies exist in the regions. In Lothian the needs calculation increases next year by 1·6 per cent., but the guidelines increase by 3·95 per cent. In Strathclyde the needs calculation increases by 4·92 per cent., but the increase in the guidelines is less than that for Lothian and is 3·90 per cent. The whole system is shot through with anomalies.
In a sense, the anomalies are not as important as the effect on services if the local authorities tried to meet the


Secretary of State's guideline figures. The guidelines are now so much of a farce that the local authorities in most cases are paying no attention to them.

Mr. Barry Henderson: As it was the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) who introduced the guideline figures originally, does he not agree that on such a theoretical basis for figures, whether needs figures or guideline figures are used, there are bound to be imperfections in the system; or has he a more ideal system that could be put forward now?

Mr. Millan: In a sense, it would not matter tuppence if it were not for the fact that the guidelines are being used to penalise local authorities that have exceeded them. The guidelines are now so nonsensical that the local authorities have no faith in them at all.
The Secretary of State, who claimed that there had not been any real reduction in services in Scotland over the past few years, did not let us have any insight into the type of reductions he is asking local authorities to make in 1983–84 in accordance with the guidelines. The Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities has sensibly provided us with some of the details. I am referring again to reductions in real terms on current year's budgets. There is allowance for inflation but no allowance for anything else.
The total education budget, which is of course the biggest budget, would have to be slashed in 1983–84, by 7·7 per cent. The figure is about £98 million. That is the Secretary of State's own figure. In the case of teachers, he is asking the local authorities to reduce expenditure by £55 million. When the local authorities say that that will mean sacking 6,000 teachers, the Secretary of State gives no answer. What is more, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who is not present, goes about proclaiming the beautiful pupil-teacher ratios in Scotland. We only have beautiful pupil-teacher ratios because the local authorities in Scotland are not mad enough to sack the 6,000 teachers who would have to be sacked if the education figure for teachers for 1983–84 was to meet the guideline. The Secretary of State is disputing that point. I shall give way to let him answer now.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the planning figure that we allowed for education still allows for the highest ever levels of pupil-teacher ratios, both in primary and in secondary education.

Mr. Millan: The Secretary of State is not answering the question. The guidelines provide for a reduction in education spending of £98 million, of which £55 million is for teachers. That will mean sacking 6,000 teachers. Does the Secretary of State dispute that? He cannot dispute it because it is the reality, but fortunately for the people and schoolchildren of Scotland the local authorities will not be mad enough to do what the Secretary of State asks.
Education is not the worst case. Libraries and museums are being cut by 13 per cent. Concessionary fares to old-age pensioners and to others, if they were to meet the Secretary of State's figures for next year, would have to be cut back by 41 per cent. Does the Secretary of State dispute the figures? He cannot dispute the figures because they are contained in the statement issued by the Secretary of State to the local authorities. Leisure and recreation expenditure would have to be reduced by 33 per cent.
There is no point in the Secretary of State weeping crocodile tears for Scottish opera. He is an opera lover, which is something that can be said in his favour, but the local authorities, if they were to meet the leisure and recreation figures laid down by the Secretary of State for 1983–84, would have to reduce their budgets by 33 per cent. The Secretary of State knows that these figures are correct, but he has the brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend that this could all be carried out painlessly in 1983–84. Next year, no doubt, he will be claiming that we still have the best pupil-teacher ratios ever even though that is because the local authorities have refused to obey the injunctions contained in the rate support grant settlement and in the guidelines issued along with it.
The Secretary of State knows that local authorities in Scotland will not make the cuts for which he asks in 1983–84. Does he honestly expect the £120 million to be saved or to be spent? He has not been clear about that. The Under-Secretary appears to be clear about it, and that is an innovation; because usually he is not clear about anything. I hope that he will clear the matter up. Local authorities are not clear about what will happen about the £120 million. What about penalties if local authorities—as they will—spend more next year than is provided in the rate support grant and guideline settlement? The issue is an unholy mess. The rate of grant in 1983–84 will come down to 61·7 per cent., compared with the 68·5 per cent. which the Secretary of State inherited when he came to office.
What about rate increases? The Secretary of State seems to take credit for the fact that domestic ratepayers in 1982–83 will not pay the increase that I forecast last year. I expect to hear more about that. Is it a matter for pride that the domestic ratepayer is paying 15 per cent. more in the current year than a year before? Does the Secretary of State take pride in the overall figures since he became responsible?
The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 23 December that the average domestic rate payments in Scotland, excluding water rates, rose from £137 in 1979–80 to £285 in 1982–83. That is an increase of more than 100 per cent., on expenditure which changed hardly at all in that period. Why has there been such a massive increase in rates when expenditure has increased only modestly? On numerous occasions we have explained the reasons which involve inflation, the setting of unrealistic expenditure levels and cuts in grant.
Local authorities have behaved with responsibility, but the unfortunate ratepayer in that three years has had to pay double. When water rates are taken into account the average payment in 1982–83 was more than £313.
The ordinary domestic ratepayer in Scotland used to pay less than English—though not Welsh—ratepayers. A consequence of the Secretary of State's stewardship is that by 1981–82 the ordinary domestic ratepayer in Scotland was paying more than the ordinary domestic ratepayer in England. There is no reason to be proud of that record.
Rate increases next year are likely to be modest. I agree with the Secretary of State about that. However, they will not be so modest if interest rates begin to rise again, as they have in the last week. They will not be so modest if various economic circumstances change and set the inflation rate increasing rapidly again. We have two parallel sets of


figures—the local authorities' and the Secretary of State's. His figures have never matched reality and they will not in 1983–84.
Domestic ratepayers in Scotland have paid and will continue to pay a high penalty—even with the modest increase that is to take place next year—for the way in which the Secretary of State has dealt with local authorities in the past three years. They will continue to bear a high rates burden. They will enjoy services that are a good deal poorer than they ought to be and which are poorer than is necessary to deal adequately with the needs of the Scottish people. What is more, what has been achieved has been accompanied by bitterness between central and local government such as we have never before witnessed in Scotland. That is why the Opposition will vote against the order.

Sir Hector Monro: I felt that we were watching and listening to a video recording of last year's speech when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) told his tale of woe, doom, depression and the failure of all local authority services. The only dramatic happening of last year was the bundling out of the Socialist Lothian council for ridiculously extravagant spending.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland deserves our commendation for what he has achieved for Scotland from the Exchequer this year. His managing to get a 4·3 per cent. increase or, in cash terms, £1,924,250,000 for local authorities should be regarded in its true light and not attacked on all sides by the Opposition.
Local authorities have been asked to make no more sacrifices than have many other sectors. It is right that they should be prepared to join the rest of the country in examining budgets closely and being prepared to make savings whenever and wherever possible. Playing one's part in keeping inflation down is of the greatest benefit to the nation. That in turn will greatly benefit the economy. It will be a major step towards bringing back jobs when we move out of the world recession.
If our aim of 5 per cent. inflation in the not too distant future is to be fulfilled, the cash that is provided by the rate support grant is not far from that target. It is understandable that local authorities do not wish to be kept in as close check as my right hon. Friend is determined that they should be. It is only natural for councillors—I have been one—to want to spend money on new ideas, improvements and better services. Nevertheless, in times such as these we must exercise restraint.
It is important to bear in mind that in 1979–80 the increase in local authority expenditure was about 3·2 per cent. In 1981–82 my right hon. Friend reduced it to 0·2 per cent. We are moving in the right direction. My right hon. Friend was right to point out that we should not always be budgeting for expenditure increases. Of course, we must bear in mind the effect of inflation, but if services are running well, and if all those that are required are provided, we should not increase expenditure year by year as a matter of course.
It is most commendable that the Government's restrictions on expenditure have been so modest. There has been no slashing of expenditure and none of the vast cuts

that we have heard about in the headlines. The vast cuts are to found in the projected expenditure by Socialist councils—expenditure that could not possibly be met by reasonable budgeting.
The Labour party weeps crocodile tears and tends to forget that its circular in 1976 called for a reduction in real terms—something for which we have never called—of local authority expenditure. The Labour party was never worried then about what would happen to services. Its members said that they would cut expenditure in real terms. We have not contemplated that.

Mr. Henderson: Is not what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has provided in support for local government this year more in real terms than what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) provided in 1977?

Sir Hector Monro: That is true. I am glad that my hon. Friend has highlighted yet another of the statements by the right hon. Gentleman. When one delves into what he has said in the past, some remarkable things appear.
The right hon. Gentleman did the most tremendous U-turn or somersault in the latter part of his speech, when his usual forecast of a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in rates came down to something very modest. I can see him getting cold feet. He has been taken to task for going over the moon with the most ridiculous anticipatory forecast last year.
The real issue is that our constituents, whom we represent, are ratepayers. They do not wish rates to rise dramatically year by year. Therefore, it is right that local authorities should budget as closely and tightly as possible. Local authorities must make a determined effort to keep rates down. One has only to drive about some of the major cities, which, for their sins, have been under Socialist control, to see the large shops that are now empty and for sale because the owners cannot pay the rates. That is damaging to Scotland's economy.
Opposition Members have only to think of what happened in Edinburgh and, as a result, what happened to the Lothian Socialist council. At the end of the day the ratepayers call the tune. What happened in Lothian may happen in many other Socialist-controlled authorities throughout Scotland. I hope that it does. The sooner they get the message, the more likely they are to stay in power. I am not sure which way I want it to be.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is not paying much attention to the political argument in Edinburgh. Does he recognise that the whole place is up in arms at the cuts, and that even Tory councillors are going to press and attacking the regional council for making cuts in nursery schools? Is he aware that thousands of jobs are being destroyed by the regional council?

Sir Hector Monro: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are dealing with the rate support grant order. I am certain that the ratepayers of Edinburgh and Lothian are thankful that the rate increase this year will be substantially less than the increase over the past three or four years under the Socialist policy of the Lothian council.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State one or two questions. He will anticipate that I shall want to say something about the rate support grant formula. He was helpful before Christmas in writing to me


about the needs element. If one excludes the Western Isles, where the headage rate of £730 is ahead of the rest, the regions are covered by a bracket of about £170. I wonder whether that is a sufficient weighting in favour of rural areas, where the costs, distances and bus subsidies are higher, for obvious reasons. I wonder whether my hon. Friend should consider having another look at the formula with CoSLA. CoSLA, being based on the population in central Scotland, tends to say, "Thank you very much for the formula as it is."

Mr. Maxton: Where does the chairman come from?

Sir Hector Monro: There is democracy, even in CoSLA.
I believe that the formula is still weighted against the rural areas and I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter. I believe that, subconsciously, because of CoSLA's weighting in favour of central Scotland, the Government are not giving sufficient weight to the far-flung country areas where costs are much higher than in central Scotland.
I want to ask two questions about the district councils. Thrift deserves its reward, and the outturn, as it affects some district councils and, indeed, some regional councils, is somewhat disappointing to them. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell me about his method of client group assessment. Why does the new formula have to be adjusted as soon as it is prepared? For instance, in Nithsdale the client group requirement is £2·522 million. Why does it have to be adjusted by £0·452 million? Similarly, in Annandale and Eskdale the client group method reduces the figure from £1·655 million to £1·26 million. All these statistics are extremely difficult to grasp, but it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could say a word or two about why the new formula is being adjusted.
The Secretary of State has provided a good settlement. Why is it so necessary for the Opposition, year in, year out, to criticise it in every possible way? If they had their way and there was a massive increase for the local authorities, there would inevitably be higher taxation, a much higher borrowing requirement, higher interest rates and therefore higher unemployment. If that is what the Opposition want, they should be honest enough to say so.

Mr. Dewar: If this is such a good settlement, what reduction in expenditure in real terms would follow for the district councils if they obeyed the indicative guidelines suggested by the Government?

Sir Hector Monro: That question cannot be answered without the aid of a host of computers. The local authorities in my area have always done their best to meet the guidelines. They have frequently done so, and the ratepayers have benefited from that achievement. The ratepayers of Scotland want from the Opposition constructive and realistic comment, and the Opposition Front Bench should start providing it right now.

Mr. J. Grimond: The Secretary of State, of course, is a prisoner of the system that he inherited, which is both unsatisfactory and complicated. I accept that, as he says, he has discussed with local authorities and their representatives many aspects of the order. Whether the results of the consultations have been always satisfactory to either side is another question.
The Government's handling of local authorities has been distinguished by a failure to deal with the real difficulties, constant meddling in detail and the creation of uncertainty. They have failed to reform the system of local finance and, contrary to their election promises, the rating system remains unchanged. I agree with other hon. Members who have spoken that rates are a serious matter for businesses in many parts of Scotland and in some cases their level contributes to unemployment. The Government have done nothing to define the responsibilities of local authorities, although in two or three Acts they have laid new duties upon them with a mass of detail that has not made the job of local authorities any easier. They have also pressed for more capital expenditure without taking into account the inevitable result on current expenditure.
I understand that the guidelines now proposed imply that there will be cuts in excess of the 4 per cent. which will be the general result of the order. If that is so, it needs far more explanation than has so far been given. As has been mentioned, £90 million will be knocked off education and considerable sums from other activities. Despite inflation, the rate support grant is reduced from 64 per cent. to 61·7 per cent. Whether or not one regards those cuts as justified, they will undoubtedly present great difficulties to many authorities, particularly in rural and island areas.
In addition, and of great concern in my constituency, there is the decision to derate outside plant and machinery. I appreciate that that is now to be dealt with in a separate order and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his announcement that that order is to be laid today. Nevertheless, it is highly germane to this debate. Unless local authorities have some certainty as to what the position will be, they cannot possibly budget effectively.
The derating of outside plant is damaging where it is not simply pointless. It does not bring Scottish law into line with English law because in England inside plant is not derated. If the law relating to outside plant has to be brought into line, why should not English law be brought into line with Scottish law? The Government's decision will not greatly benefit the oil companies as they will be the principal contributors in increased rates. In any case, I understand that a considerable proportion of their rating expenditure can be set off against tax.
Help was promised by the Government, but the help offered to Orkney through an additional £1·08 million in the needs element, although welcome, will nowhere near compensate for the loss. To compensate for that loss in 1982–83 would require about £2·13 million. In Shetland, the rateable value of Sullom Voe will fall by £12 million or 10p on the rates. I understand that no compensation at all is contemplated for Shetland. Such aid as is given will come from other local authorities. Why? The decision to derate outside plant was taken not by other local authorities in Scotland but by the Government, so I do not see why compensation should not fall on the Exchequer. I believe that the change was suggested by the CBI, but the CBI made it clear that compensation should come from the Exchequer, and it is supported by CoSLA in that view.
I am all in favour of economy in local government expenditure. I do not deny that local authorities must have regard to the general financial state of the country and to the economic policies of the Government. That is clear. Nor do I deny that there are areas of local government in which economies could be achieved and indeed have been achieved by some authorities. Cuts of this scale, however,


cannot be imposed all at once. For instance, the fall in school rolls cannot simply be matched by a comparable reduction in the number of teachers. Even if it were possible to dismiss 6,000 teachers, which it is not, to relate this simply to the smaller number of pupils in schools would be damaging to education. There should be a fixed relation to population, needs, resources and geographical difficulties. Education should not be at the mercy of sudden changes such as we have constantly suffered over the past few years.
At present it is impossible for local authorities to budget or plan. The method of dealing with local government finance is contrary to the general stance taken by the Government over finance. It is important to simplify matters and to enable local authorities to budget upon firm foundations for the years to come. Local authorities have been rather more successful than central Government in keeping within their targets. It is usually central Government, not the local authorities, who are spendthrifts. I trust that the Government will think again about the cuts, which, I believe, are 7 per cent. on district and 11·8 per cent. on regional councils.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In relation to his own constituency, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the percentage increase in guidelines is 6 per cent. for Orkney and 22 per cent. for Shetland? Does he not think that these are reasonable figures?

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Government for what they are doing in my constituency. Does that take into account the severe lack of rateable value that will be suffered by the derating of outside plant and machinery? It is difficult for local authorities to budget or plan until they know whether the Government will stand by their pledges so that local authorities will be compensated for the change.
We have been told that the only local authority that will gain compensation is Orkney, and that will be, so it has been estimated, between a half or a quarter of the amount needed. If the Government have more money to offer, we shall welcome it. We make it quite clear that we are grateful for small mercies. I ask that the whole method of local government finance be re-examined because it is upon the guidelines that the penalties will be assessed. If the guidelines, even if Orkney and Shetland are exempt, are in general lower than the cuts, that would seem to be an anomaly. I ask the Government to consider whether it is fair to lay the burden of compensation on other local authorities and at least for a time not to make good to Orkney and Shetland the loss that they will suffer. It must be the object of the Government that far-flung and rural areas must not be at a disadvantage by these very complicated formulae. If the Government make the anticipated changes, the burden should at least fall upon the central Exchequer and not upon other local authorities.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I am sure that all hon. Members felt some disappointment tonight when, during the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the leader of the SDP, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), left the Chamber. Most of us hoped that, after two years, we would hear the SDP's views on rating and

rateable values in Scotland. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman was so baffled by the famous predictions of the right hon. Member for Craigton that he felt he was outmanoeuvred and decided to leave the Chamber.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) say that he believed that local authorities have a responsibility to take account of the overall policy of the national Government, particularly in economic terms. It would have been refreshing to hear the right hon. Member for Craigton applying those arguments while he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. From the moment that the Labour party lost the election he decided that the time had come to switch from being the gamekeeper to being the poacher, and he is now the poacher with a vengeance.
Local authorities have to pay some attention to the national economic scene. It would be incredible and ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The majority of local government expenditure is provided by national Government. The national Government have to find that money in some way. Perhaps, more importantly, the national Government are accountable to the electorate as taxpayers for the way that they raise and spend their money. Local authorities and the national Government will never live together harmoniously until that joint responsibility is accepted.
The right hon. Member for Craigton seemed to suggest that the national Government should always provide money for local authorities when they ask for it. I think that I referred to that last year as the blank cheque mentality. However, towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made a prediction that perhaps will be more accurate than the one that he made last year. He said that he expected rate increases this year to be moderate. He explained that they will be moderate because interest rates and inflation are down. The right hon. Gentleman must be true to the logic of his own argument. During the recent by-election at Glasgow, Queen's Park, the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) suggested that a Labour Government would borrow money. In effect, he said, "Of course we shall borrow money. We have borrowed money before, and we shall do it again."
The lessons to be drawn from borrowing money are, first, that interest rates go up and, secondly, that inflation increases. If those consequences took effect, the right hon. Gentleman would see rates increasing yet further. That part of the logic of the Labour party's economic argument defeats me. However, I do not believe that it will defeat the electorate when the time comes for its decision.
When the House debated a similar order last year, I spoke about the effect of rate increases in the Lothian region. I was told mockingly by Labour Members that I should wait until the local elections in May to learn what the electors of the Lothian region thought about the argument between high rate increases and services. We had the answer in May. It was clear that Lothian ratepayers were fed up with constantly being hammered by rate increases. They decided that the time had come for a change.

Mr. William McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the logic of a party which gained power on the strength of a manifesto which said that a Conservative Government would wish to extend democracy? Why was it necessary for the Secretary of


State for Scotland to extend his powers to overrule the wishes of democratically elected district and regional councillors?

Mr. Ancram: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to me. The majority of local government expenditure is provided by the national Government. There is nothing democratic in a local authority saying that it will spend somebody else's money for which it is not accountable. Democracy depends on accountability. For that reason, my right hon. Friend rightly took powers to control the amount of money that he can provide for local authorities, for which he has to account, and left local authorities to account to their ratepayers for the moneys that they raise and spend.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British people generally regard Parliament as the ultimate resolver of grievances? One of the great grievances that we come across every day in our constituencies is the burden of increasing rates that is imposed by Socialist-controlled local authorities. If the Government had not acted to control the way in which rate levels are set, they would not have carried out their duty to our constituents.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The right hon. Member for Craigton made a great issue of the fact that under this Government rates have increased by 100 per cent. I suspect that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wishes to intervene to tell me that. I shall save him the trouble of so doing. Perhaps when he replies he will say why the only area where there has been a reduction in rates is the Lothian region. The reduction took place because a Socialist local authority was thrown out and a Conservative authority took office. That shows that when Conservatives come into local authorities which have had profligate Socialist councils over the previous years, rates are actually reduced.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Ancram: Before I give way, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the ratepayers in my constituency feel that a reduction of 16p in the pound is worth some of the difficulties that they are facing as a result. They have seen shops in their areas closing and jobs being lost because of the high rates. They believe that the only way to create a stable local authority in the Lothian region and in Edinburgh is to show rather more economic sense than in the past.

Mr. Dewar: We look forward with great interest to see whether the shops open again while the present economic policies of the Government are followed. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the key point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), that rates in Scotland have increased by over 100 per cent. under this Government? As the Secretary of State made clear, that has happened when real spending by local authorities has remained static. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that? Plainly it is not the fault of the local authorities. It must reflect Government support.

Mr. Ancram: I do not accept that it is not the fault of the local authorities.
However, that brings me naturally to my next point. All that the hon. Member for Garscadden said—

Mr. Hugh McCartney: Answer the question.

Mr. Ancram: I am answering the question, if the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) will give me time. One of the answers can be found simply by looking at the manpower figures. The amount of extra money that has had to be found within local government in Scotland to pay for extra people who are employed is something which all hon. Members should bear strongly in mind.
The right hon. Member for Craigton, who accused me of interrupting him from a sedentary position, is the expert from whom I learnt that trade. I shall not give way to him at this point.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about cutting services and losing jobs because of cutting manpower, but can he, or his hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden when he sums up, explain how, as Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the position in local government in Scotland where there were 8,700 fewer people employed than there are now? The right hon. Gentleman presided over the biggest cut in local authority manpower in the 18 months between June 1976 and December 1977. There was a reduction of more than 11,000 people employed in local government in Scotland. We did not hear him, as Secretary of State, bleating about the cuts in services and the terrible implications that would have for people living in those local authority areas. The reason was that they were achieved painlessly and simply without many redundancies, but by simply not replacing people whose jobs came to an end.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, I know—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this when he sums up—that this can be done again. There is no point in the Government making money available to local government, as they have in what I believe to be a reasonable package, unless efforts are made to cut out those areas where there is overmanning. If that is the sole achievement from the package this year, not only the people of my constituency but the people of Scotland as a whole will be grateful to the Government.

Mr. John Maxton: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is a better lawyer than he is economist. He certainly is no economist, as he proved during his speech, because he does not understand economics. With his last point he followed his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in seeking yet again higher unemployment in Scotland. That is what he means when he advocates cutting manpower and cutting out wastage in local government. He is talking about more unemployment and adding more people to the dole queues in Scotland.
I make the point that I have made time and again. I am sure that it is getting a bit boring now. The debate should be taking place not in this Chamber but in an assembly in Scotland. We should have two or three days to discuss the matter fully and local authority representatives should not have to spend large sums to come down here to talk to us. They should be meeting us in Edinburgh. That is where the debates should be taking place, and that is where, when the next Labour Government come to power they will take place.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), according to the newspapers just before Christmas, were competing for the


post of Secretary of State for Defence. The Secretary of State for Scotland lost that particular battle. I gather that he lost it because it was considered that the right hon. Member for Henley would do a better job in combating the peace campaign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Does this have anything to do with the rate support grant?

Mr. Maxton: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that it does. It is an appalling indictment of the priorities that this Government give to the social spending of local authorities and to the problems of inner cities, of those who are badly housed and of dampness in houses that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the former Secretary of State for the Environment should consider it a promotion to go to the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friends will know that no Labour Secretary of State for the Environment or Secretary of State for Scotland would consider it a promotion; they would consider it a demotion. It is an important point. It relates to the way in which—[Interruption.] I assure hon. Members on the Government Benches that I checked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) before I made that remark. He would not want to move to be Secretary of State for Defence. This Government put a higher priority on expenditure on death than on social spending to ensure that the old and the young in our society have a decent standard of living.
I turn to a particular issue in relation to Government spending—the question of money being spent or not being spent on leisure, recreation, the arts, museums and libraries. It is all to do with how people spend their leisure time. If the Secretary of State gets his way, local authorities will be obliged to cut spending on leisure and recreation by 33·3 per cent.; spending on libraries and museums will be cut by 13·3 per cent.
I am not by any means making a threat, but Glasgow has just spent an enormous capital sum, along with the Government, on a new building for the Burrell collection. If Glasgow district council carries out the cuts in spending on libraries and museums, will it be able to maintain the Burrell collection?

Mr. Craigen: It could not open it.

Mr. Maxton: That is the sort of appalling waste that could come from this Government's policy. There would be enormous capital expenditure, but Glasgow could not open the collection or keep it open for the public because of the Government cuts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) raised the question of what will happen to our great national art organisations, in particular the Scottish National Orchestra and the Scottish Opera, if local authorities do not spend money on them. If Glasgow district council, which now has the responsibility for giving those subsidies to the organisations, has the choice between closing the swimming pool in Castlemilk and giving money to the Scottish National Orchestra or the Scottish Opera, very reluctantly, I would have to say that it should keep the swimming pool in Castlemilk open.
If Glasgow district council were to carry out the Government's instructions about leisure and recreation,

that is the choice that they would have to make. The local authorities have told us that if the cuts in leisure and recreation were to be made, every swimming pool and sports hall in Scotland would be closed.
How do the Government relate such a demand to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State, his Department and the previous Under-Secretary of State have been running a campaign called "Fit for Life" in which people are advised to give up smoking, go on a better diet and take up more exercise through organised sport?
The Scottish Sports Council has been running a campaign to give more people an opportunity to take part in sport, yet the Government are demanding that local authorities close recreational facilities. What an appalling indictment that is of a Government who are spending money on campaigns on the one hand and demanding cuts on the other. That makes no sense.
The recreation and leisure cuts do not relate simply to district authorities. Regional authorities may also have to make cuts in the way that community centres and schools are used for evening classes and evening recreational purposes. If the Government had their way, the regional authorities would have to cut their educational budgets. Schools might not be open in the evenings for badminton and other recreational classes. Luckily, of course, our local authorities will refuse to carry out such cuts. They see the enormous suffering that the cuts would cause.
At the same time as the Government are seeking a massive reduction in facilities for leisure and recreation, they are increasing unemployment through their economic policies. They have also increased by 8 per cent. in real terms the amount spent on the police since they took office. They have introduced further powers for the police and new offences. Have their policies led to a great reduction in crime? Today, I received the crime figures for Castlemilk in my constituency. In 1978, 113 crimes of violence were committed in the area and in 1981, the last full year for which we have figures, the number was 180. Crimes of dishonesty in the area in 1978 were 1,634 and in 1981 the figure had risen to 2,046.
The increased spending on law and order has not solved the problem of increasing crime. That is caused by increased unemployment, poorer housing and poorer leisure facilities that leave little else for people to do. Those conditions create crime. Instead of spending increasing sums on law and order and on trying to solve crimes after the event, the Government should spend it on removing the causes of crime.
The Government's actions are frightening—the move to reduce democracy in local government, the latest attempt to do away with free trade unions and the increasing expenditure on law and order and defence. I do not accuse any individual or even the Government as a whole of deliberately doing so, but they are preparing the ground, as any historian knows, for a Fascist state.

Mr. Bill Walker: The latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Glagow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was quite offensive. No one could seriously believe that in Britain, the mother of democracies, any of us would attempt to destroy our democracy. If the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes that, perhaps he is more out of touch than some of us believed.
The hon. Gentleman gave us an interesting introduction and mentioned the problems of my hon. Friend the


Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) in understanding economics. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, because I presumed—obviously incorrectly—that he was about to make a speech that illustrated clearly that he had some knowledge of economics and that he would clarify what he said about my hon. Friend. However, his speech contained no economically sound proposals.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of the inner cities and the environment. Everyone in politics cares genuinely about the problems that many of our citizens face. However, the hon. Gentleman, as usual, managed to score some own goals. I am glad that I do not play in a football team with him, because trying to score more goals than he scores against his team would make life difficult. Everyone knows that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), when he was Secretary of State, was forced to face the problem of overborrowing and overspending. He took action to deal with the problem. Sometimes his hon. Friends do not recognise the tremendous courage that that required at the time. I commend the right hon. Gentleman, because it took real courage.
It still takes real courage to face the facts of life. The Labour Government, under the direction of the IMF, were forced to face the fact of life that somehow central and local government borrowing at that time had to be reduced. I emphasise the words "at that time". The hon. Member for Cathcart should face that lesson in economics. Many of the things that everyone would wish to be done sometimes cannot be done by a given time because of circumstances over which national Governments have no full control. An example of such circumstances is overseas events. The problem faced by the Labour Administration was caused by the escalating price of oil. It would be nonsense to claim that that factor did not affect our plans.
The basis that we use to work out local government expenditure programmes and fund-raising programmes—indeed, the entire financing of local government—is unsatisfactory. The guidelines are a rough and ready way of achieving our objective and are most unsatisfactory. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are trying to find a more satisfactory way of achieving our goals. The right hon. Member for Craigton put his finger on it when he mentioned the problems that Perth and Kinross district council will face. It would be nonsense to pretend otherwise, and I shall never come to the House and do other than present the facts as I see them. The district council faces the problem because the guidelines are rough and ready and are based largely on historical fact. If one starts with a low expenditure base and adds to it year by year, and others who start from a higher expenditure base do the same, inevitably the expenditure per head of population becomes increasingly compounded and distorted. That is basic mathematics. It may not be economics as the hon. Member for Cathcart understands it, but there is no doubt that if one uses an historical basis and one authority has been prudent for 10 years and has said "We shall be careful with our expenditure programme over a long period" and has started at a cut-off point, that authority will be disadvantaged from then on in terms of the guidelines that are worked out.
It would be better to take as a base the expenditure per head of population. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, there are problems in rural

areas as well as in urban areas. I do not want to argue for either, because our job is to do the best that we can for both. If we work on the expenditure per head of population and the services that are provided per head of population, we get closer to a fairer method. That is all that I want. I am not asking the Government to increase expenditure, and there would be no point in doing that in these difficult times. However, we must make sure that what we do is fair to all.
I should be quite happy to argue on behalf of the residents of Dundee if there were areas there that needed attention. However, I am not prepared to accept a situation whereby the residents of Perth and Kinross are disadvantaged because they have been more prudent than others over a long period. That is the argument that I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will study the expenditure per head of population and the services that are provided within that authority to see whether we can find a more equitable way of spending the funds that are deemed to be available.
We should also look carefully at how any deficiencies and gaps in planned expenditure are to be covered. Under the present system, it is done by rating. If the local government contribution is to be reduced, we must be careful not to distort the balance between one area and another in rating. To illustrate that, one only has to look at the massive plans for house building in the area immediately adjacent to Dundee district, where rates are so much lower than in Perth and Kinross. However, the residents of Perth and Kinross know that they have a prudent authority and they expect this Government to support prudent and responsible authorities in the most meaningful way.
I fully understand that the guidelines are a broad brush. They are rough and ready, as I said earlier. I accept that the authority of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was given proper consideration because it was well above the proposed guidelines in previous years. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the same consideration will be given to the good and prudent authority of Perth and Kinross.

Mr. William Hamilton: This afternoon we all had the opportunity of listening to an all-party delegation from CoSLA. The startling, although not surprising, thing was its generally unanimous contempt for the way in which the Government have handled local government finance over the past two or three years.
I do not pretend to understand the complexities of these matters, but the crux of the argument can be put simply. The Government, being the principal provider of money for local authorities, have an undoubted right to determine the size of that element at any one time, and whether it be higher or lower depends entirely on the Government's assessment of the national economic situation. Therefore, the Government are right to assert that position. Successive Governments over the past few years have asserted that right to ensure that local authorities conformed with their view. However, the Government are now determined to compel local authorities to spend no more than what they think local authorities should be spending and at the same time to slash their part of that expenditure.
The Government work out what they will pay local authorities by the complicated formulae to which I have


referred. The Government determine what is fair and reasonable expenditure. I served on the Committee which dealt with that aspect of our legislation. Initially, the Government were content to issue guidelines to local authorities. The very word "guideline" implies a degree of flexibility and discretion for local authorities. That nomenclature has taken on a rather more sinister meaning now. It seems that the guidelines are much harsher and more punitive, not to say vindictive, than they have been in the last year or two.
By any definition we are talking about substantial sums. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has referred to education. Education is one of the most crucial and expensive services which is primarily provided by local authorities acting as virtual agents of Government. My right hon. Friend referred to the cuts in that vital service of £98 million this year. That is a substantial sum indeed. It is the inalienable right of every citizen to have an education from birth to death of sufficiently high quality to draw out of him or her whatever intellectual capacities he or she possesses. Education should be the last to suffer public expenditure cuts, yet the Government are proposing a cut of nearly £100 million. My right hon. Friend said that a cut of £55 million could result in 6,000 fewer teachers in the Scottish education system. The Secretary of State was careful not to deny that that was a real possibility and a dangerous threat to Scotland's educational fabric.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned the cuts of about 33 per cent. which are being visualised for recreation and leisure. We were told this afternoon by people who impressed us all by their great knowledge, sincerity and responsibility for education that a cut of 33 per cent. in leisure and recreation services is the equivalent of closing down every swimming pool and sports centre the length and breadth of Scotland. That is the measure of the cut that is being imposed on local authorities in Scotland. That is coming at a time when the quality of life is being threatened by unemployment and when the unemployed should have increased access to such facilities. At the very time when they are most needed, the Government are cutting down.
The same applies to concessionary fares. One of the great problems for our old people is mobility—being able to meet their friends, relatives and neighbours. They depend more than most on concessionary fares on our buses, particularly in the rural areas but also in the cities. Those concessionary fares are to be cut by more than 40 per cent. which will mean a real reduction in the standard of living of the poorest in our society. Therefore, the quality of life of the poorest in our community, whether they be the old or the unemployed young, is being hit hardest by the Government. The same will apply when we debate housing later today. Those who can ill bear the sacrifices are having them imposed upon them to an increasing degree.
It is a mean order. It means the undoubted diminution of quality of life for our citizens, who are primarily represented by the Opposition. Labour local authorities are making it clear that they have no intention of accepting the Government's directives, come what may. They will preserve the quality of life and the services that they were elected to operate, and they will receive support for that in the coming local and general elections.

Mr. Jim Craigen: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke about the experience and expertise of the local government representatives who formed part of the lobby that visited the House today. One of the differences between the local government system and that of Parliament is the extent to which local government officials and councillors specialise in certain subjects. Such specialisation is not always found in our parliamentary system. Civil servants and Ministers change, and some of those making vital decisions today will not taste the medicine in a few years' time when the problems occur.
I understand why some Conservative Back Benchers are ready to go into the Lobby to support the Government in pushing through the order. But a dangerous trend is developing of the Government viewing themselves as an anti-local government party. It is left to the Opposition to advance the positive case for local authorities. Time and again today the Government appear to view local authorities as good whipping boys. They believe that attacking local government is good for the recovery of private industry. The facts contradict that philosophical approach because there has been a marked decline in private industry. The figures show a 1¼ million drop in the number of people working in private industry during the first two years of the Conservative Administration. The Government's economic policy is crumbling and local authorities are being asked to pick up the pieces.
Local government must deal with the problems of the unemployed; and also cope with a larger proportion of elderly within the community and their special needs such as housing, or added demands on social services. The number of homeless is increasing, as is the number of families breaking up because of cash problems. The effects of that on many children is placing increasing demands on the social services, yet the Government are cutting their central contribution.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to the derating of external machinery and equipment. Other local authorities will have to bail out those local authorities primarily involved in that change in the legislation.
The CBI, which initiated the move, is quickly backtracking because its members up and down the country will be hit as a result of the changes in the rating and valuation system. A greater burden is being thrown on to fewer shoulders. We are witnessing the erosion of the rating base. Industrial concerns are closing. As has been pointed out, more and more shops and commercial enterprises are going out of business with the recession and the local authorities lose rates for those premises. Local authorities are facing a shrinkage in the rating base at a time when the Government are savagely cutting their central contribution.
I shall raise three specific points with the Minister. The Secretary of State is adept and he managed to skip over the changes in urban deprivation. This measure will be a big blow to regions such as Strathclyde, with the problems in the inner city areas and with the high level of unemployment that persists in the west of Scotland. It is sad that the Government have given their approval to the Scottish Development Agency to withdraw from Glasgow's east and renewal. I hope that it does not alter


the input of the Scottish Special Housing Association which would affect the assistance given to tackling the city's problem of urban renewal.
I should like the Scottish Office to make a positive move towards supporting some of the priority areas that Strathclyde region has designated such as Maryhill Corridor Project. The various agencies should move into the inner city areas. The Government usually say that they leave the region or the district to sort out their priorities. However, they know full well that both regional and district councils are experiencing reductions in the resources available to them. It is most unfortunate that the Government should decide now, at short notice, to withdraw the extra teachers available through the urban aid programme. They were a positive advantage to areas such as mine. If Strathclyde region wants to fund those teaching posts, it will have to increase the rates. Therefore, the Government should have a change of heart.
Reference has been made to the problem of leisure and recreation. More young men and women are now hanging about, filling in time, because they do not have jobs. Facilities that those young people would use are now being closed. If, because of their economic policy, the Government cannot provide youngsters with permanent jobs, they should at least recognise the growing need for leisure and recreation and do something to mitigate the plight of those youngsters. One can play about with as many Stodart reports as one likes, but hon. Members know from their constituency correspondence that bowling greens and swimming pools are being closed and that libraries are shutting earlier. We are not utilising the existing social equipment.
We have the nonsense of the Prime Minister in the Queen's Speech debate criticising the local authorities for not spending all their money on capital projects at a time when the Government are reining back on their revenue expenditure. In Glasgow, one of the options was to close libraries on Saturdays or on three or four days a week, while, at the same time, a local authority might be able to get the necessary capital approval to build a new library. It is nonsense that the Government and their advisers should carry on in that way.
I should like to refer briefly to restrictions on housing. Am I right in thinking that the Government are prepared to hand out £5 million through the Housing Corporation in Scotland to develop shared housing to encourage people to have a 50–50 rent-ownership arrangement? I do not quibble about the concept, but it appears strange that for the immediate future some private builders who have not been able to sell their houses might find those houses taken over by the housing associations as a means of introducing the concept of shared ownership. If the private market is so good, surely the private builders would be able to sell all their houses without any need for public support.
Moreover, the Minister is aware of the problems that are cropping up for local authorities over the operation of the rate support grant when conducting the modernisation programmes that we should like to see implemented. Most Members of Parliament are being made aware of areas which would like to have their local authority houses modernised. The problems facing Glasgow district council at present are precluding the necessary modernisation of much of this housing. The district council is contemplating a rent increase of 6½ per cent. at a time when the Government still adhere to their policy of 4 per cent. pay rises in the public sector.
More and more family budgets are under pressure, not least from travelling costs. I hope that the Government will consider again the problem of public transport. In Strathclyde, it appears as though there will have to be a fares increase of 5 per cent. In my constituency 80 per cent. of the public depend on public transport. Perhaps the Government will consider again how motorway development is funded, not that there is a great deal of it left nowadays. It still appears to be easier for the regional authority to develop in that way. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider the amount of support that is available to the region for its transport services. Ministers may wax eloquent over the operation of the guidelines, but, looking through the papers that we have received, it is remarkable how scanty and skimpy the information is. The Under-Secretary of State is smiling, but the people who have to take the hard decisions are those in local authority committees who have to deal with the priorities that the guidelines impose on them.
The number of people receiving rent and rate rebates is increasing. The Minister should tell us exactly how many people are in receipt of rent and rate rebates because that will show the extent to which people are falling outwith the burdens that the Government expect local government to carry. The Government have failed to act on their promise to reform the rating system and local government. They use the rate support grant as an annual excuse to obscure the fact that they are failing to keep election promises.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hour is late so I shall endeavour to be brief in spite of the extreme provocation to which I have been subjected. Government Members have given the impression that only Labour-controlled local authorities will be disappointed with the settlement, but they are mistaken. I draw to the attention of the House, in the absence of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the views of Sutherland district council. It has not been taken over by the Militant Tendency. Its chairman is not Mr. Arthur Scargill, far less is it Mr. Michael Connarty. It is not even run by the SDP, which is not represented on the council. Referring to Sutherland district council, The Scotsman reported:
Of a threat expressed to storm St. Andrew's House and of a mass resignation, the council chairman, Mrs. Mackenzie, said after yesterday's meeting at Dornoch: 'You can take that seriously. We have in the past as a council taken a conscious decision to go along with Government guidelines very consistently. But a situation has now been forced on us because for lack of money we have had to go over these guidelines. … It's disgraceful to hit out at a small fragile economy such as ours. Have they no conception of the area we cover, how scattered is the population, and the expense we have to go to just to keep normal services running?'".
That is the view of a small council, but it is an important view. It should be considered seriously. It is a view that is shared by the regional and island councils and by the 53 district councils in Scotland.
In his statement tonight, and in his statement before Christmas, the Secretary of State gave the impression that he was not bearing in mind, particularly when he was highly critical of manpower levels, the fact that Scotland is a different country from England and Wales and has different problems. Scotland contains twice the number of council houses per 1,000 of population than England and Wales and all the staffing problems that go with that.
One must take account of the sparsity of population in Scotland and the problems that go with it. Many Conservative Members represent constituencies of that type. They should be more aware of such problems than we are. Our settlement of the rate support grant should reflect the problems that those areas face.
The Secretary of State took the view that there should be widespread disappointment about the staffing figures. I do not agree with his objectives. He was mean and not grateful to Scottish local authorities last year when they reduced manpower levels by 2 per cent. What is more, in doing that they reduced the projected target of rate increases for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has been severely criticised. The fact remains that if they had kept their manpower levels at the level of the year before, the projected rate increases would have been realised.
I shall ask a question which I believe many Scottish people are asking. If, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) says, we must relate all these matters to the economy, why are we so determined to throw people out of employment in local government, especially in the manual sectors, thereby adding to the unacceptably high level of unemployment in Scotland? Local authorities do not want to do that.
Local authorities have been given the duty, by statute, of dealing with industrial development and promotion. They are keen to discharge that duty, but shops that are closing are not doing so as a result of rate increases, regrettable though they are. Rates are a small percentage of the costs that shopkeepers must meet. Shops are closing because of the Government's economic and industrial policy. As has been reiterated throughout the debate, that policy, combined with the settlement that has been presented to the House today, represents a severe blow to the objectives of Scottish local government.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Every year when we debate these orders dissatisfaction is expressed at the way in which local government is being treated. Today's debate has shown even more sharply than those of previous years the utter dissatisfaction that seems to have penetrated every echelon of local government about the way in which it is treated financially. Opposition to what the Government are doing extends far beyond the financial terms of the settlement.
Those hon. Members who had the opportunity to meet CoSLA representatives this afternoon were impressed that from their different political points of view they were all extremely critical of the methodology by which the Government have approached this year's settlement. They were also critical of the attitude with which the Government approached the subject. They felt that it was almost as if the settlement had been dictated and laid down on high on tablets of stone. When they were consulted, they were told what would happen. They had little influence or control over the outcome of the settlement.
I do not have experience of local government finance, but one of the things that I have noticed while I have been a Member of Parliament is the complex way in which figures are drawn together. Even to this day I feel that it is a case of the blind leading the blind. The House does not face the problems of trying to deal with local

government finance to maintain services and provide facilities for constituents as must councillors. It is true that we frequently call on local authorities to provide facilities for our constituents. In many cases they provide them, but the worry of finding the money with which to do so is one that we do not have to share, although, politically, sometimes we have great sympathy.
With regard to methodology, the Government will have to accept, from what we have heard from CoSLA, that there has to be a change in the way in which the rate support grant settlement is achieved and consultation at an earlier stage. The Government, not just on minor matters, must show that they are willing to listen to the real problems that emerge, which the local authority councillors can explain to the Government from their practical experience.
With most Governments there will always be limitations on the amount of money that is available. That is why it is essential that even within those limitations the Government should have the flexibility and willingness to listen to what our councillors suggest.
On that basis I recommend to the Government that, even if they are not prepared this year to consider any major changes, they should look at the complexity if not silliness of what has happened with the development of the guidelines, which now seem to act as a distortion and get in the way of local authorities. That, combined with the link between capital and revenue expenditure, tied up in a peculiar fashion, makes it extremely difficult for local authorities to function. It is strange that, when calls are made by the Government to local authorities that they should go on a capital spending boom, they find that they cannot do so and thus achieve the goals that the Government have set simply because of the restrictions on revenue expenditure imposed by the Government.
The Government must change their line on methodology. In the House I frequently feel that—I am not talking about just my own utterances on the subject—when other hon. Members make suggestions to the Government about the way in which the system is run and what changes should be made, they are not being heeded. In a sense we are dictated to. In such debates we can give our opinions. Sometimes we can help local authority councillors who cannot put their opinions directly in the House, but with the full knowledge that the Government will not listen and that there will be little change. When we vote, we vote on the global sum. Even if we could not change the volume of expenditure, it would be of much more interest and more useful if we could vote on individual items of expenditure, as many other Parliaments do. Perhaps the Government should consider that matter. A Conservative councillor from CoSLA whom I met today described the present set-up as an utter shambles. He said that not out of disloyalty to his party but out of frustration at the confusion that has been caused.
We must also accept that one of the inhibitions that we are facing in the debate is that the mandate for the cuts comes from the Treasury. It has no relevance to Scotland. The needs are here. We have a duty as parliamentary representatives to see that those needs are adequately taken care of, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet, through a majority that was not elected in Scotland and a mandate that they do not have, are able to trim the amount of money and therefore the services that are available to our people.
I repeat the figure of 5·65 per cent. in 1980, which by 1985 will be 5·05 per cent., of United Kingdom expenditure available to Scotland. That means that, in a sense, over five years Scotland will have lost over £2 billion. When we realise that that money is disappearing and not being made available as Scottish expenditure, and is being brought down to the same level as that in other parts of the United Kingdom, we are aware of why the Health Service is suffering, why roads are deteriorating, why money is being trimmed off education and why housing is being trimmed substantially.
I shall not have the opportunity to make this point in the next debate. Through the housing support grant the Government are inflicting untold injury and damage on the housing system in Scotland. When mortgage interest rates are coming down it makes no sense to jack up the rents to the extent that the Government have in mind. In terms of equity if not of sense, they should realise that they cannot get away with that. If the Government wanted to create inequalities in society, that would be the right way to set about it. I cannot see why the Government propose to give no housing support grant to Dundee, with all its housing problems, or to other communities with the same problems of social and economic disparity from which many of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members do not suffer. I ask the Government to think again. The rate support settlement and the housing support settlement for this year are utterly unjust.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I shall deal first with the first complaint of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), which was about the timing of this debate. This is the second year in succession in which the Government have provided time before 10 o'clock for a debate on the Scottish rate support grant settlement. That contrasts with what happened when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State. The debate on the 1977 order started at 11.40 pm on 22 December 1976. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), who rose to speak today at 9.31 pm, will remember that in 1978 he started speaking at eight minutes past 12 midday on a Friday. The House should accept that we have provided a reasonable time for this debate.
Certain Opposition Members give one the impression that restraint in local government expenditure is a new concept. My hon. Friends the Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) have both pointed out that the hon. Member for Maryhill and his colleagues took a similar line when they were in Government. The right hon. Gentleman told the House at that time:
there are not many people in the country—and certainly not in local government, who believe that the way out of our current difficulties is by reflation through increasing public expenditure."—[Official Report, 15 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1127.]
It was the right hon. Gentleman who pointed out that his Government's White Paper stated that
the substantial rate of expansion in recent years in local authority manpower and in local spending could not continue, and that any increases in individual services had to be offset by reduced levels of provision in other services."—[Official Report, 22 December 1976; Vol. 923. c. 850.]

Mr. Harry Ewing: What about unemployment?

Mr. Stewart: The Labour Government doubled unemployment. Labour Members have tried to make out that the economies sought by the Government this year are somehow unreasonable or unacceptable, but let us consider the settlement before the House. The total allowed by the Secretary of State for relevant current expenditure is the key figure. If, as we hope, total expenditure is within that figure, there will be no need in Scotland this year, as there was last year and in certain years under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, for a general abatement. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, local authority expenditure has risen steadily in real terms since 1977–78, which was not a year in which there were complaints about the level of services. Against that background, the economies of 3 to 4 per cent. for which my right hon. Friend asks—we do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's figure—are perfectly reasonable and acceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out. My hon. Friend was similarly correct in pointing out the effects of the recession elsewhere in Scotland.
The Opposition have also not answered my right hon. Friend's points about the increase in manpower. Local authority manpower in Scotland is now 2·6 per cent. above the lowest level under the Labour Government, whereas in England it is 5·4 per cent. less than when the Government came to office and 3 per cent. lower than the lowest figure under the Labour Government. That shows that economies can be made. They have been made in England and in some Scottish local authorities but not—this is the problem—in all of them.
Several hon. Members referred to the unallocated portion. Of course we should have preferred not to take that line, but it was forced on us by the difficulty of bringing local authority expenditure into line with the Government's programme.
I was also asked some detailed questions about the guidelines. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Craigton asked about the policy adjustment this year in relation to the expenditure need figures. In the interests of stability, the cash increase over 1982–83 for each authority, excluding the urban programme, is to be held within a range of plus or minus 25 per cent. of the average cash increase in the level of relevant expenditure. With regard to the exclusion of the urban programme, I shall return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to sparsity. Rate support grant expenditure per head is higher for the rural authorities in Scotland than for the urban authorities, with the exception of Strathclyde which has particular problems, thus reflecting the importance of sparsity. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire on the detailed points that he raised with me.

Sir Hector Monro: Is the formula finally fixed for this year, or is further consideration still possible?

Mr. Stewart: We have to consider the changes in the distribution of the rate support grant system and in the methodology of the guidelines in consultation with COSLA as a whole. Of course, different authorities have different views on some of the detailed changes, but I assure my hon. Friend that the distribution of the rate support grant distinctly favours the primarily rural regions


as compared with the primarily urban regions. This reflects the fact that, as he rightly says, costs tend to be somewhat higher in rural areas as a result of sparsity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire asked about historical expenditure being reflected in current guidelines. That was certainly the case in the 1982–83 guidelines, but it is much less so in the 1983–84 guidelines, and I accept my hon. Friend's general proposition that one should try to reduce the emphasis on historical patterns of expenditure in moving towards a client group approach.
I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will accept that the expenditure guidelines have been substantially changed in the case of Shetland to reflect the particular problems in relation to oil development. With regard to external plant and machinery the order includes the provision for Orkney. The right hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that in relation to Shetland there is real uncertainty as to the rating resources that will be available. Currently, they are about £10 per head as compared with £2·60 per head for other authorities, but, as Sullom Voe will mean changes in the rating base, a totally unpredictable element will be brought into the calculations. I hope that gives some reassurance. We shall certainly consider whether there are measures which should be taken when that major uncertainty becomes resolved.
A number of hon. Members have referred to education. This year we are facing a 3 per cent. decline in pupil numbers. the teacher-pupil ratio that we are planning for 1983–84 is 21·8 for primary education and 14·6 for secondary education. That is almost exactly the same as the ratios which the Labour Government had in 1978–79, and in previous years the ratios were worse. We are increasing non-teaching costs by6·5 per cent. per pupil. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable total for education.
Several hon. Members have suggested that the settlement is biased against those who are particularly vulnerable in our community. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Craigton referred especially to housing. I shall respond to those points at the end of the debate on the next order but I appreciate that hon. Members wish to take this opportunity to speak on housing.
The increased provision for social work, which is the key element in local authority expenditure that most affects the needy, is an increase of £21·3 million from £249·6 million to £270·9 million. That will enable local authorities to maintain their services and enable real growth of 2 per cent. in the level of service. That demonstrates quite clearly the Government's commitment at a time of great difficulty to ensure that resources are made available to maintain and improve facilities and services for those in our community who are most in need.
The hon. Member for Maryhill raised two matters of importance which were not reflected in the more general comments of other hon. Members. He said that urban aid expenditure was being taken out of the guidelines, it having been put in as a policy adjustment for 1982–83. Taking it out adversely affects Strathclyde, but there has been no change for Glasgow district. Strathclyde has benefited from the 25 per cent. plus or minus adjustment.
I emphasise that taking urban aid expenditure out of the guidelines is helpful to those authorities which have substantial urban aid programmes.
The hon. Member for Maryhill mentioned GEAR and I shall clarify its position. The Scottish Development Agency has commissioned a series of excellent review reports by consultants about the next five years for GEAR. The GEAR management committee, which includes the Strathclyde region, Glasgow district, the SDA, the health board, the SSHA and the housing corporation, agreed at a recent meeting that in the light of the reports they would draw up a statement of priorities for GEAR to be considered at the next meeting of the management committee.

Mr. Dewar: There are two issues which the Minister could helpfully clarify. I understand that the Scottish Development Agency is no longer to be the managing agent of the GEAR project. Will the Minister explain briefly why this decison has been made and tell us who is to be the managing agent? Secondly, there has been a statement to the effect that the Scottish Special Housing Association is to concentrate from now on on special-need housing. Some of us have inferred that the significant general housing effort and input into GEAR will not be maintained. Is that a fair inference to draw?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is reasonable that, when the SDA's major rehabilitation work in GEAR is concluded in about three years' time, the management and co-ordination effort in GEAR should be returned to the local authorities. I hope that it will be accepted also that there should be a full five years for review. If the hon. Gentleman consults the local authorities, I think that he will find that they are not unhappy with this reasonable proposition of passing the management to them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the SSHA's commitment to GEAR will be met.
The most important person in this settlement is the ratepayer. The right hon. Member for Craigton rightly did not repeat his horrific forecast of last year for this year's outturn. We believe that the increase in rates will be within the rate of inflation. We have had encouraging reports from a number of authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) referred to the Lothian region. It appears from press reports that the Lothian authority is considering a reduction in its rate. I hope that that shows that the settlement before the House is reasonable for the taxpayer, for the ratepayer and for responsible local government. Accordingly I commend it to the House.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said about my constituency. However, will he tell us when the uncertainty about Sullom will be resolved? That is of great importance for the local authority.

Mr. Stewart: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is in the hands of the assessor and not in mine.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 218.

Division No. 39]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Bendall, Vivian
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Greenway, Harry


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grieve, Percy


Best, Keith
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grist, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Blackburn, John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hastings, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawksley, Warren


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney


Bright, Graham
Heddle, John


Brinton, Tim
Henderson, Barry


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hill, James


Brotherton, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hooson, Tom


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butcher, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Latham, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cope, John
Lee, John


Cormack, Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Costain, Sir Albert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Crouch, David
Loveridge, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lyell, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Macfarlane, Neil


Dover, Denshore
MacGregor, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Dykes, Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Madel, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Major, John


Eggar, Tim
Marland, Paul


Elliott, Sir William
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mawby, Ray


Farr, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fell, Sir Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mellor, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Monro, Sir Hector


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moore, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint


Gardner, Sir Edward
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mudd, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Myles, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael





Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Onslow, Cranley
Stanley, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Steen, Anthony


Osborn, John
Stevens, Martin


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Parris, Matthew
Stokes, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Percival, Sir Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Thompson, Donald


Pollock, Alexander
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wakeham, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rost, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Walters, Dennis


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Wickenden, Keith


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Ian Lang.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Adams, Allen
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cowans, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Crowther, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dewar, Donald


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Donald


Campbell, Ian
Dobson, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack


Canavan, Dennis
Douglas, Dick


Cant, R. B.
Dubs, Alfred


Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Eastham, Ken


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)






Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


English, Michael
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kerr, Russell


Evans, John (Newton)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ewing, Harry
Lambie, David


Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Field, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Fitch, Alan
Leighton, Ronald


Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ford, Ben
Litherland, Robert


Forrester, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Foster, Derek
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Foulkes, George
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Golding, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Gourlay, Harry
McMahon, Andrew


Graham, Ted
McNamara, Kevin


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Marks, Kenneth


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Haynes, Frank
Maxton, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Meacher, Michael


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Mikardo, Ian


Home Robertson, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Homewood, William
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Howells, Geraint
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hoyle, Douglas
Morton, George


Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Janner, Hon Greville
O'Neill, Martin


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


John, Brynmor
Park, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John





Parry, Robert
Stoddart, David


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Race, Reg
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Robertson, George
Wainwright, R (Colne V)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Rooker, J. W.
Wardell, Gareth


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Watkins, David


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Ryman, John
White, Frank R.


Sever, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitlock, William


Short, Mrs Renée
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Soley, Clive
Woolmer, Kenneth


Spearing, Nigel
Wright, Sheila


Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spriggs, Leslie



Stallard, A. W.
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

Housing (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17 December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17 December, be approved.

Mr. Younger: The details of the settlements are already widely known and are contained in the documents before the House. Therefore, I do not propose to take up the time of the House by reiterating all the explanatory material, but to concentrate my remarks on the issues that I know are of major concern to the House. They are the aggregate of grant and the broader issues related to it. In relation to the detailed contents of the draft notes I stress that, as usual, both drafts are the product of detailed discussion and consultation between officers of my Department and of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The House will wish to know that this year, in fulfilment of an undertaking that I gave to the convention last April, the consultations have involved the provision of fuller information to the convention's representatives than ever before, including advance notice of my income and expenditure assumptions. There has been agreement on all but one of the technical formula assumptions relating to distribution on which the draft orders are based.
The main order includes one important innovation that relates to the way in which loan interest is to be calculated. The change, which I know the House will welcome, has been introduced in response to the express wish of the convention.
I wish to deal first with the straightforward question of the draft variation order. Last February the House approved an order providing for housing support grant totalling £134·4 million in 1982–83. That was based on an assumed interest rate of 13–09 per cent., but interest rates have moved downwards since then and district and islands councils average pool interest rate for 1982–83 is now estimated at 11·99 per cent. Consequently, grant falls to be reduced by £29·8 million because authorities will be spending that much less on loan charges than was allowed for in grant settlement. Authorities are not losing anything. They are not spending the money on loan charges and, therefore, they will not receive the grant that they would have received had they spent it.
In the main order for 1983–84 the aggregate amount of grant is £72·1 million compared with the revised aggregate of £104·6 million in the current year. That is not an arbitrary reduction. It reflects the fact that, on reasonable assumptions, income will rise by more than expenditure, leaving a smaller balance to be met by grant.
The income assumptions are likely to be the main focus of debate, so I shall deal with them first. Apart from housing support grant, local authorities meet their expenditure mainly from rent and rates. For rate fund contributions, I have assumed a small increase over the level assumed last year to allow for inflation. I shall deal

later with the fact that several authorities budget for rate fund contributions higher than we consider reasonable and the serious consequences of that.
I have taken the view that rents should be assumed to increase by £1 a week. That will not affect all authorities. My assumptions for grant lead to no increase in rents for the 11 authorities that have no grant entitlement this year, and the effect on the nine other authorities that will not be entitled to grant in 1983–84 will be less than £1 per house per week. However, even for those authorities that remain in grant and for which the £1 figure is relevant, that is a very modest figure. I am aware that Opposition Members will have much to say about percentages, but I think it is more sensible to keep talking in terms of cash. The bare facts are that tenants in Scotland currently pay £9 per week on average in rent while their counterparts in England pay half as much again, about £13·50 per week.

Mr. Donald Dewar: rose—

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I might be allowed to finish this part of my argument. In the past there was always a differential of this kind, but one always took into account the fact that, by and large, average earnings south of the border were much higher than those in Scotland. However, a comparison of manual worker's incomes shows that whereas in England the average manual worker's income is £133·50 per week, the equivalent Scottish figure is £136·90 per week—that is, £3 higher than the figure for England and Wales. Moreover, I should have thought that, on any calculation, £9 per week for rent is not much against an income of over £135 per week.

Mr. Dewar: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He said a few moments ago that the average rent increase that he was looking for was about £1 a week. He also said—and I think that we agree—that the average rent at present is £9 per week. The notional rent that he is asking local authorities to reach on average over Scotland is £550—or £10·59. It is therefore dishonest to talk about a £1 increase. It should be £1·60.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. In any case, I want to make it perfectly clear that, when I assume an increase of £1 per week, it does not mean that everyone will have that amount. Some will have more, some will have less, and some will probably have no increase at all.
Perhaps I should anticipate the usual objections—they have already come from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) from a sedentary position—about pensioners, the low-paid, and the unemployed. I remind him and the House that the rent rebate scheme means that such people pay either no rent or only a proportion of the rent. No pensioner with only the basic state pension would pay any rent at all, either at the present level of £9 per week or at £10 per week. The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is just as well, but two minutes ago he was shouting "What about the pensioners?" I have told him about the pensioners, and he should be happy about that.
Let us consider the case of a married man, with two children, who is in employment and earning up to £85 per week. He would pay no rent, whether rents were £9 per week or £10 per week. He would have to earn more than £105 per week before he paid even half of the rent.

Mr. Michael Martin: Is the Secretary of State prepared to look into the difficulty


which many pensioners experience because they are refused rent rebates as a result of the savings that they have been able to make during their working years? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the amount that a pensioner is entitled to have in the bank and see whether it can be increased?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that point. It is a problem which I have frequently met in my constituency, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has. It is right that we should consider such matters from time to time, but it is unlikely that we could entirely eliminate the consideration of people's savings. It would not be right for the public to pay part of the rent of those who have large savings. However, I take the point and we shall consider it in revising the level of rent rebate schemes.
The only people who would pay a full rent of £10 per week would be those who have good incomes. The married man with two children, whom I have been using as an example, would need to earn about £130 per week and close to the Scottish manual worker's average of £136·90, which I mentioned just now, before he would pay all of a rent of £10 per week. About half of all tenants pay less than the full rent. So it is only the other half, those with relatively high incomes, to whom a rent increase of £1 per week would mean an extra £1 out of their pockets.
Before leaving rents, I must make the point that my assumption for the purposes of housing support grant does not determine rent levels. Local decisions are important. Efficiency and economy in management and maintenance expenditure can keep rents down, and profligacy can force them up. Actual rent increases in individual authorities depend very much on authorities' decisions.
Another factor is the level of rate fund contributions. We have consistently urged local authorities to reduce these to the reasonable level assumed for the purposes of housing support grant, because we believe that the public expenditure resources involved are more urgently needed for capital spending and because we are concerned about the burden on ratepayers.
I am glad to say that we are managing to increase the proportion of public expenditure on housing which goes into capital spending rather than subsidies. [Interruption.] Let me say that again. The right hon. Member for Craigton has not listened. We are managing to increase—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is not likely to hear it even the second time if he chatters away like a boiling kettle. He really should take a lesson in listening. I shall say it for the third time. I am glad to say that we are managing to increase the proportion of public expenditure on housing which goes into capital spending rather than subsidies. We plan for 74 per cent. of resources to go to capital spending next year as opposed to 71 per cent. this year. [Interruption.] I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's ability to chatter away and not hear a word of what is being said while keeping up a running commentary on it. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches from a sedentary position are very much better than the ones he makes when he is standing up. Perhaps he will be glad about that.
We plan for 74 per cent. of resources to go to capital spending next year as opposed to 71 per cent. this year. That proportion would be about 80 per cent. if all local authorities would co-operate with us in giving priority to

capital spending rather than across the board rent subsidies to benefit those with incomes too high to receive rent rebates. Unfortunately, a minority will not so co-operate. They continue to budget for very high levels of rate fund contributions.
There are four large authorities which are responsible for most of the problem. They account for almost half of rate fund contribution spending on the basis of about a quarter of the council housing stock. The average rate fund contribution per house in Scotland of £ 138 is more than 1½ times the £91 in England and Wales. If one were to leave out these four authorities the Scotland figure would come down to £101·69, only £10 more than in England. Those four authorities are a huge drain both in capital spending in Scotland as a whole and on their own ratepayers. Glasgow's ratepayers pay 21p in the pound because of the burden of rate fund contribution on the rates. This is more than the total rate in some local authorities, such as their neighbours Eastwood.
I have told those four high spending large authorities that it will require reductions in rate fund contributions expenditure of about £9 million from them if their capital allocations are to be at the level I have said that I wish them to be. This should not be difficult. They all spend more than one and a half times the Scottish average and I have said that this needs to come down to 40 per cent. above that average. I believe that much of this could be achieved by economies in management and maintenance expenditure, but if the four authorities concerned choose to put it all onto rents it will add 20p per week to the Scottish average and between about 40p per week and about 90p per week to rents in those specific authorities. I have allowed the other 52 authorities rate fund contribution limits at the same level for which each of them has budgeted this year, so that the effect on rents is neutral.
I have already touched on expenditure considerations, through the effect that high rate fund contributions have on pushing down the level of capital allocations. I wish to say more about capital allocations in relation to the expenditure side of housing support grant. The figure for loan charges in the order is a straightforward reflection of the volume of capital spending for which the provisional capital allocations allow. The real point is that I wish to pay more grant, because I want capital spending to be higher.
The fact that rate fund contributions are taking up a sum of money that is between 40 and 50 per cent. of the amount left over for capital is the main constraint. I have tried to change that through the housing expenditure limits system, but the decision is in local authorities' hands. I have managed to keep capital allocations for HRA block spending at last year's level, while ensuring a large volume of resources for the non-HRA block allocations to allow authorities to follow through the huge increase in take-up of repair and improvement grants in the private sector following the changes that we have made to the grant system. Authorities can also help themselves. We have made it possible for them to add to their capital spending on the basis of their capital receipts, mainly from council house sales. Unfortunately, there is evidence that this year some authorities have not tried to bring in the full amount of receipts available. They have allowed a backlog of sales to remain and so ruled out the capital spending that receipts would allow. However, they can redeem the situation next year by clearing those backlogs. My Department has written to 32 authorities suggesting that


the backlog is equivalent to about £28 million in lost receipts. Bringing in those receipts will be of substantial value to the capital programme and I hope that authorities will take the steps necessary to achieve that benefit as soon as possible.
The other main element of the expenditure side of the grant assumptions is management and maintenance expenditure. I have allowed a 7 per cent. increase over the level assumed last year, which allows a small increase in real terms. The assumed expenditure levels to which !the increase is added are above the actual expenditure levels of the majority of authorities.
The level of expenditure and income assumptions put together is, as I have shown in discussing rents, that 20 authorities are estimated to have an excess income over expenditure and thus do not feature in the grant settlement. Their excess income does not reduce the grant payable to the other 36 authorities.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I apologise for not hearing the Secretary of State's earlier remarks. If we consider the trend in the 20 local authorities in relation to the housing support grant, how many authorities in the coming years will be excluded? How many authorities will receive the same proportion of grant in 1984–85 if we continue the trend?

Mr. Younger: That depends entirely on the trends in expenditure and income following authorities' decisicns. Is is quite possible, and I hope desirable, that as many authorities as possible will leave the grant system as their housing accounts become more balanced. I cannot guarantee that any particular number will do so, because it depends upon their decisions.
The settlement tries to give an incentive to housing authorities to achieve as much capital spending as possible, to be fair to their tenants by allowing them to buy their houses if they wish to do so, and have a rent that is thoroughly reasonable in relation to people's incomes and way of life, while keeping the rent rebate scheme, which has now been subsumed by the unified housing benefit, to cope with all those who find difficulty in paying their rent through lack of income, unemployment, pensionable age and so on.
It is a reasonable settlement, and I hope that the House will approve both orders.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State has made two speeches today, and the second was certainly better than the first. It was intermittently—and largely unintentionally—funny, but it is to be preferred to his first effort on the rate support grant. We witnessed the extraordinary and shameless sight of the Secretary of State advancing the basic failure of his policy in defence of his actions. He said that despite everything he had done, and despite his guidelines and his disapproval, local authority spending had not varied much in the past two or three years in real terms. If that is right, it debunks what he has recently tried to achieve.
Whatever the argument about spending on the rate support grant, the figures for the housing support grant are dramatic and stark, and tell their own tale without any ambiguity. In 1979–80 the housing support grant in Scotland was £213 million. The order for 1983–84 produces a figure of £72 million. That represents a

catastrophic collapse in the contribution made by Government towards the fight against inadequate housing standards. In real terms the value of the housing support grant has been almost halved compared with the current year. Whatever may be said in partial mitigation—and something may be said, because interest rates have at least temporarily declined—there is no hiding the fact that much less money will be available to local authorities to improve or even maintain present standards in the housing stock.
As we all know, 20 authorities have fallen out of the housing support grant altogether. They represent about 40 per cent. of the total Scottish public sector housing stock. For 40 per cent. of council houses in Scotland there will not be any sort of grant. That can give no cause for satisfaction or pride, even among Conservative Ministers. We are talking not only about the Tweeddales, the Nithsdales, or about West Perthshire and Kinross, but Edinburgh, Dundee, Dunbarton, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline and Renfrew, which are victims of the manipulation of a hopelessly artificial formula by insensitive Ministers.
Anyone who believes that there is no longer housing need in such authorities will believe anything. We are in a world of make-believe. The Secretary of State spoke about the realism of this year's order. Of course, the housing support grant calculation has nothing to do with the real financial world of local government. It has been dreamt up at St. Andrew's House and is based on a series of false premises. Of course, it can be said that an authority with a surplus on its housing account should not get housing support grant. That might be a fair and arguable statement if one was dealing with a genuine surplus. However, the Secretary of State is going in for simple sleight of hand and for accountancy practices which, if applied to any private sector firm, would result in the directors going to gaol for fraud.
Anyone who argues that there must be a surplus to drop an authority out of housing support grant, must do what the Secretary of State has done—underestimate the authority's real expenditure and overstate its real income. In that way one can produce a nominal surplus, but it will have no meaning to anyone with an iota of common sense or any grasp of reality. The figures used in the order show what has been happening. I am obliged to COSLA, and I do not think that the Secretary of State will dispute its figures. If a figure of 7 per cent. for inflation is added to the 1982–83 budget figures for supervision and management in Scottish local authorities, the final figure is far higher. It works out at about £75 per house, compared with the figure in the order of just over £60 per house.
At one stroke, by using that highly artificial concept, about £13 million of what ought to be the proper expenditure figure in the national equation for calculating the housing support grant is being taken away. Similarly, with regard to the repairs and maintenance figure, about £11 million is being taken off. If, at the same time, the Government cheerfully say that they will assume a rent income, which we know will not be gathered in by Scottish local authorities, of about £44 million above what is actually being gathered in, of course it is then possible to create surpluses all over the place, but in doing so the credibility of the system is being destroyed and the confidence of the people who are struggling to keep the


housing programme in Scotland afloat is being wrecked. No doubt it is a splendid scheme from the point of view of the Treasury, but it is, I repeat, fraud on a grand scale.
It is fraud that degenerates into black farce when we come to the subject of rents. I find it breathtaking to listen to the Secretary of State—he was at it again this evening—saying in his bland and rather pedantic way that all the Government are asking—of course, across the board—is an increase of about £1 per week in rents. He does of course make the qualification that there are four particularly wicked groups about—those who inhabit the city chambers in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Stirling and Hamilton. However he still says that the increase is £1 across the board. He has reached that figure by taking the notional rent figure of what he expected to be collected or what he said he expected to be collected last year and what he is putting in for an additional figure this year. Last year, the difference between the two figures was £498 per annum per house. This year he is expecting £550. Therefore he says the difference is just under £1 per week. But we did not have a rent income of £498 last year. It was £467. Therefore, as the Secretary of State said himself a few minutes ago, the actual average rent that was being paid in Scotland was £9 per week. His new notional rent is £10·59. It is as plain as a pikestaff that he is looking for £1·59. It is bordering on the dishonest—that is as kind and as charitable as I can be—to go around pretending that it is only £1 and then to say to me when challenged that I was not comparing like with like. That is quite extraordinary. I do not accept that merely because in England there is a tradition of higher rents we in Scotland should have automatically to fall in line. If that is the argument, it is a remarkably dangerous one for someone who is supposed to be the custodian of our separate traditions in housing in Scotland. I cannot for a moment see that that makes sense in the context of the present debate.
In 1979–80, when the Secretary of State began his stewardship in Scotland, the average rent was £4·72 per week. Since then, in successive years, we have had increases of 20 per cent., 30 per cent., and 17 per cent. The Secretary of State is now looking for 18 per cent. as the figure jumps to £10·59. It is not good enough for him to say that there are rebates. The difficulty with rebates is that the take-up of them is not 100 per cent. We all know that. Shelter suggests a 75 or 80 per cent. take-up. Many people will be struggling in difficult circumstances if this type of imposition is placed on local authority housing committees in the coming year. As for the four authorities that have been picked out—Glasgow, Aberdeen, Stirling and Hamilton—it is an artificial nonsense to say that they have to crush their rate fund contribution down to £193 per house. It is nonsense to say that my area of Glasgow will have to find 25 per cent. in order to meet the Secretary of State's targets and to save from threat their capital allowances.
The capital side was the most brazen effrontery of all from the Secretary of State. He said that he was proud that there had been a switch and that a higher percentage of the total of housing finance was now going on to the capital spend. Of course that is true, because the Secretary of State has cut the grant. It is not surprising that capital has become a larger proportion of an inadequate and declining total.
Perhaps in a couple of years the Secretary of State will say proudly "We have made a tremendous achievement in Scottish housing. We have eliminated the grant and therefore the miserable capital spend that I am able to afford will be infinitely bigger than the grant paid to Scottish local authorities." That is the logic of the madhouse. The Secretary of State should be ashamed to argue in such a monstrous fashion.
I give credit to the Secretary of State for carefully choosing to say that the percentage has risen because the capital allowance for Scotland this year is down by more than 16 per cent. in real terms compared with last year. In 1982–83 the initial capital allocation, before the sanctions and penalties were imposed, was £297 million. The equivalent for 1982–83 is £249 million. If that is an increase and a cause for congratulation, God help us, because the Conservative Government will not.
The starting point, the needs allocation, is down from £297 million to £249 million and that figure can be related to almost every local authority. The Glasgow figure is down from £75 million to £60 million. Local authorities unanimously condemn the obnoxious system under which, having decided what can be allocated on the basis of need, the Government introduce a back door sanction to try to force up rents.
I believe that I carry with me almost every right hon. and hon. Member when I say that the Government should allocate according to need. They should not try to impose a fief because a local authority has not met some arbitrary figure plucked from the Secretary of State's prejudices. That puts an insupportable strain on the system.
Last year I talked about an opening shot—a needs allocation of £297 million—but about £55 million was lost, not because the need had been met or because there was less need, but merely because the Government wanted to beat local authorities with rent policies that the Secretary of State disapproved of. The year before the sum was £35 million. I have no doubt that some additional penalty will be imposed this year to take away from the reduced £249 million figure.
The Secretary of State may sound plausible to someone who has not examined the starting points, but the edifice so carefully constructed by civil servants is based upon totally misplaced fallacies and is an enormous blow to the chances of decent housing standards in the next year or two.
Inevitably we shall have to face cuts in services, deteriorating housing stock and reduced choice for tenants almost certainly cruelly linked to ever increasing rents. I do not wish to overstate the case, but any hon. Member who has represented a constituency with a high content of public sector housing knows how near to breaking point is morale in many areas. In many parts of my constituency are houses which were wired in the 1920s and have not been touched since. Many houses have only one 13 amp plug and tenants are genuinely worried about the safety of their electrical systems. They have been promised rewiring—perhaps last year, this year or in three or four years. The date retreats because of the Secretary of State's attack on the housing support grant.

Mr. Younger: Since Glasgow has been under almost unbroken Socialist control for the last 50 years, is not that a condemnation of the edifice that Glasgow has built up?

Mr. Dewar: I know that the Secretary of State has difficulty grasping time scales, but for a large part of that


50 years the system in many of those houses was reasonably satisfactory. In the past few years it has been suffering under appalling strain. It is a simple fact that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have been starving Glasgow district council and every other district council of basic finance. The Minister is pulling faces at me but that is an incontestable fact.
We are facing a radical change under the present Government. I do not contest that. There has been radical change but it has been change for the worse in almost everything. If, for example, one examines the total housing budget that has been met by housing support grant, one finds that when the right hon. Gentleman took office it was 38 per cent. and that it is now not much more than 10 per cent. When the right hon. Gentleman took office, rents were financing 44 per cent. of the housing budget. They are now being asked to finance more than 70 per cent. of it. If one examines how other sectors of the housing market are being treated, one sees a sharp and unfair contrast.
The best defence for much of what has been said by Conservative Members to day is that they know not what they do. It has become patently obvious that that is so, having listened to some of their speeches on the rate support grant, but we cannot rely on such frailties when we are dealing with matters of such importance as the basic services that affect the lifestyles of our constituents.
The policies that are being followed, especially in housing, are misguided, mistaken and pernicious. They are an obtuse combination of financial incompetence and a divisive and irrelevant social policy. When we examine what is being done, what is happening and the drear and dreich prospects that lie ahead, we are absolutely right to protest as vigorously as we can tonight.

Mrs. Helen McElhone: There is a certain irony that I should make my maiden speech on housing. It is, after all, the same subject as my late husband, Frank, spoke on in his maiden speech 13 years ago. It was also the topic that Alice Cullen selected when she began her parliamentary representation of what was known as the Gorbals constituency 35 years ago.
The years and Governments go by, but many of the problems remain the same for the people of Queen's Park. After the second world war, my constituency gained the unenviable title of the area with the worst slums in Europe. I regret to say that that was no exaggeration. Having been born and brought up in that area, and having raised my family there, I am only too well aware that generations of electors in my part of Glasgow have lived in houses which many people further south would not dignify by calling homes. They have lived in houses without adequate sanitation, without adequate insulation, in badly overcrowded housing and in housing where conditions have ensured that children grow up less fit, less healthy and less confident than their more fortunate contemporaries. But, as they say in my constituency, the darkest hour comes before another cloudburst.
Queen's Park is a constituency where even some of the solutions have proved to be a new source of distress. In the sixties, it was decided to replace some of the demolished slum properties with what came to be known as system-built housing. It was comparatively cheap to acquire, comparatively easy to erect and had been used to some effect in southern Europe around the Mediterranean.
But Glasgow, as hon. Members who have visited my home town will readily verify, is not exactly comparable with Nice. More specifically, it does not have a Mediterranean-style climate. It requires solid housing that is properly insulated against the possibility of damp. In that respect, system-built housing proved a disastrous error.
The tenants of those houses soon found that they were living in conditions that might conceivably have suppported a reasonable mushroom-growing industry, but the houses were no place in which to raise a family. Walls became covered with unsightly fungus. The smell of dankness and dampness pervaded everything. Huge families were often reduced to living, eating and sleeping in the one room that was comparatively habitable. Imagine the surprise of those tenants when a succession of experts told them that it was all their own fault. Apparently they were breathing too heavily.
The proposed solutions were often just as breathtaking. There were frequent injunctions to keep the windows open and turn up the heating—just what a family needed to know when it was already living on unemployment benefit.
Finally, the experts had to admit defeat. Now that housing scheme, less than 15 years old, lies empty in the middle of Queen's park. Almost 800 brave new homes lie silently mocking the architect who dreamt them up—not that we in the Gorbals have not had our fair share of eminent architects. There are other high rise blocks just a stone's throw from the empty ones that were designed by Sir Basil Spence, who won a major award for his trouble. I wonder what sort of award they would qualify for now. Those flats have become the new slums—so much so that the tenants have already threatened to withhold their rents.
There is a very good reason why those houses are crumbling. It is a vital part of what the debate is all about. Like so many areas all over Britain, in my area there has not been the money available for essential small repairs and renovation work. The trouble with small repair jobs is that it takes a very few months for the small repairs to become major problems. The trouble with renovation work is that it takes very few years to become demolition work.
This is the great false economy practised by the Government. They cut down on their support to already hard-pressed local authorities such as Glasgow. There is little doubt in my mind that houses that could be made sound today will need to be pulled down tomorrow at far greater expense. Meanwhile, new house building is at a virtual standstill and the more desirable local authority homes are being sold, thus cutting down the available housing stock still further.
Those are matters of special concern in an area such as Queen's Park. While over half the homes in Britain are privately owned, the figure is less than one quarter in Queen's Park. One fifth more are rented from private landlords who seem to lack both the money and the inclination to keep their properties in reasonable order.
There is another section of the electors there, not a very vocal one, that causes me particular concern. One third of the households in Queen's Park have one person living alone, usually a pensioner. Few pensioners live in any form of sheltered housing where they can count on emergency back-up when they become ill or fear violence. With the population in Britian generally showing an


increasingly older age profile, money for custom-built sheltered housing is not a social work frill any longer. It has to form a priority section of the housing budget.
There is much more that I could tell the House about the area that I am proud to represent, not much of it cause for celebration either, I regret. It is alarming but true that almost twice as many people in Queen's Park still lack a private bath, compared with the rest of the country. It is also alarming but true that there are parts of my constituency where one adult in two is out of work. Even over the area as a whole the unemployment rate is one in four. My children's friends are spending their twentieth and even twenty-first birthdays without having had a sniff of a real job and without any hope of a real future.
All in Queen's Park is not negative. The qualities of the constituency which have struck me more than any others are the resilience and patience of its constituents. Patience may be described as a minor form of despair described as a virtue. I remind the Government, however, that abused patience turns to fury.
I know that it is not customary to be party political in a maiden speech, but I cannot help remembering that at the very beginning of the Government's work the Prime Minister quoted from the prayer of St. Francis
Where there is despair let me sow hope …
Where there is darkness let me sow light …
Where there is sadness let me sow joy.
I remind the right right hon. Lady that St. Francis further prayed:
Grant that I may seek … To understand rather than be understood.
I ask the Prime Minister to use that understanding in the appreciation of the misery of many of the constituents of my area. Such misery, alas, can be combated only with money and resources and the resources that we have in Glasgow have been cut pitifully in the past three years. As St. Francis further said:
it is in giving that we receive.
Apart from the morality of that statement, it is shortsighted on the part of any Government not to realise the truth of it and to act on it. The Government are certainly not giving, as once again they are cutting the housing support grant, and I for one shall vote against this measure.
I know that it is customary for a new Member to pay tribute to his or her predecessor and the House will forgive me for leaving this until the end. I am sure that hon. Members will bear with me in this as I find it difficult to speak of my dear husband Frank in the House of Commons where he was so active and which he loved so much. His was a life of service to people. Frank led a cheerfully dedicated life—no less dedicated because of his inherent cheerfulness. It is my ardent hope that I may in some small degree continue the work of my late husband and that I may achieve a small part of the love, respect and esteem in which he was held both by the Members of this House and by the constituents of Queen's Park.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Any maiden speech is a special occasion in the House, but I think that it is fair to say that that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mrs. McElhone) was an extra special occasion—as witness the fact that even at this late hour the House gradually filled as the hon. Lady addressed it.
The hon. Lady mentioned in her very interesting speech that she would not say a great deal about her predecessor, who was also her late husband. We understand that very well. In that circumstance, however, perhaps I may be permitted to put a tribute on record. I knew Frank McElhone even before he was elected, as I happened to be the Tory "candidate's friend" in the by-election in which he was elected—and in the old constituency of Glasgow, Gorbals a Tory candidate needed all the friends he could get. It was thus my privilege to know Frank McElhone then and during his long and distinguished period of service in the House. Many of us remember him with affection as well as with respect. We were delighted to hear the hon. Lady's maiden speech, which was a particularly difficult one for anyone to make, and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing her speak on many other occasions on the subject with which she and her predecessors in the constituency have been particularly familiar—the problem of housing.
I only wish that the rational, responsible and well-informed comments of the hon. Lady about housing had been matched by those of her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. His speech, by contrast, was very fast moving and slick, but not very well informed. In particular, the hon. Gentleman sought to make something of the housing position in Glasgow following this order.
The problems of Glasgow's housing have a serious effect on the rest of Scotland. The average annual cost of repairs and maintenance for a house in Scotland, excluding Glasgow, is £230. The cost in Glasgow is no less than £390 per year—a difference of £160. That is a serious state of affairs for the people of Glasgow, who have to pay for these expensive repairs and maintenance, and for those in the rest of Scotland.

Mr. John Maxton: Glasgow has a higher proportion of high-rise flats, with much higher maintenance levels, than any other area in Scotland. Glasgow also has many older council houses because it started to build council houses far earlier than any other Scottish authority.

Mr. Henderson: I have not suggested what might be an appropriate level of repair and maintenance costs in Glasgow.
I accept that for a number of reasons the Glasgow average is not as good as the Scottish average, but I think that it would be not unreasonable—I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me—to compare the situation in Glasgow with that in Manchester. Although the cost in Glasgow per house is more than £160 above the average in Scotland, it is very nearly £100 more than the average cost of repairs and maintenance for a house in Manchester. That is a difference that cannot be explained by the sort of reasoning that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has produced, but it might be explained by the almost continuous Socialist control of Glasgow. That is a different matter. If Glasgow repaired and maintained its council houses on the same basis as Manchester repairs and maintains its housing stock, it would save the ratepayers and taxpayers about £19 million per year. That would help substantially to solve some of the real problems of Glasgow housing to which the hon. Member for Queen's Park referred.
Another very important matter for Scottish housing which emerges from this order is the contribution to the


future of council housing which can arise from the sale of council houses to those sitting tenants who wish to buy them.
One of the curiosities of the Labour Party, as the hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned, is that it feels that it is frightful if subsidies are not required. It is as though subsidies, by definition, are good. The hon. Gentleman seems to think of the houses and not of those who have to live in them.

Mr. Dewar: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should end the subsidy on mortgage interest relief for taxpayers?

Mr. Henderson: That is not a subsidy as such. There is no money paid out to owner-occupiers. Money is paid out in the form of rate fund contributions and housing support grants in subsidies to council house tenants. Even if we allow for that, the Scottish average includes the cost of repairs and maintenance in the rent to the council house tenant. The owner-occupier has to pay for his repairs and maintenance over and above the costs of his housing.

Mr. David Lambie: What about the value of the house?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that under this Government a previously unheard of opportunity is being provided for council house tenants to have the opportunity to own the houses in which they live. They can take all the advantages of being owner-occupiers, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman refers. There are real benefits in owner occupation, not only for the people, but for the society in which they live. The choice has been given to the tenants and the tenants of Scotland are voting with their feet. They are asking to buy their houses. In doing so they are helping themselves and the ratepayers and taxpayers. They are increasing the opportunity for new housing development, either public or private, as a result.

Mr. Maxton: How?

Mr. Henderson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wishes me to continue my speech and to provide a fuller explanation.

Mr. George Foulkes: It is fascinating.

Mr. Henderson: How does the opportunity to buy help the tenant? Labour Members have been implying that there are special advantages in being an owner-occupier with a mortgage. A tenant would not take on the owner occupation of a house for which he had been paying rent for many years if he did not feel that there were reasons for so doing. The Conservative party happens to be happy to leave the judgment of whether a person wants to be a tenant or an owner-occupier to the people themselves. The Labour Party would deny them the choice.

Mr. Maxton: No.

Mr. Henderson: The Conservative Party has given it to them and tens of thousands are taking up the choice. Let us assume that the buying of council houses by sitting tenants is something that the tenants themselves welcome. It is also helping the ratepayers.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is much better in the Chair in Committee.

Mr. Henderson: It helps the ratepayers and the taxpayers, because every council house on the books at the end of the period for which it has been financed will have made a loss. Almost every council house that is sold to the sitting tenant, even at the substantial discounts provided for, will produce a profit. The houses which the councils are selling are making a substantial profit on the books and that is available to reduce the capital indebtedness of the councils. The sales are, therefore, of great benefit to ratepayers.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: In the light of all the outstanding benefits which the hon. Gentleman sees flowing from the sale of council houses, why is it that his right hon. Friend has accused the North-East Fife district council of dragging its feet?

Mr. Henderson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he is extremely well informed on housing matters. He will recall that in major reports about housing in Scotland in general, and council housing especially, the policies of the North-East Fife district council have been praised on a number of occasions. When I have a little more information surrounding the question that he has posed, I shall pose it to my right hon. Friend. I shall look forward to receiving his answer then.
There have been well over 750 sales or offers to purchase council houses from sitting tenants in North-East Fife. North-East Fife district council offered tenants the opportunity to buy as soon as the Government came to power and allowed it to do so. The policy has worked to the benefit of ratepayers and tenants in North-East Fife and in Scotland as a whole.
The principal question that Opposition Members want me to answer is: why does the sale of council houses to sitting tenants help achieve more houses of the kind that we need? As a result of the substantial investment in public sector housing since the second world war there is now the same number of houses as there are families overall.
Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said when he was Minister, I am sure that he would accept that the emphasis has moved from the building of any houses anywhere in order to give people a roof over their heads, towards meeting particular needs in particular areas. I believe that in Scotland that means providing for the special needs of the elderly and for sheltered accommodation. It is an indictment of Scottish local authorities that during the past 10 years much of that need has had to be met by the housing association movement rather than by local authorities. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants reduces councils' outstanding housing debts and makes funds available to build houses where they are most needed.
The purpose of the Government grants for housing is to meet the needs of people, not the needs of bricks and mortar or council bureaucrats. The types of policies that emerge from this housing support grant order are more likely to achieve that than anything that has come from Opposition Members.

Mr. Michael Martin: I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland mention rate rebates and their attraction for people earning below a certain income. He failed to tell the House that


local authorities have to meet 10 per cent. of all rate rebates in Scotland. For cities such as Glasgow that is a substantial amount of money. I wish that he and other Conservative Members would bear in mind that council house tenants are ratepayers. They contribute towards the city in the same way as owner occupiers do.
It was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mrs. McElhone). I was pleased that she mentioned the misery experienced by people in developments such as the Hutchieston "E" housing development. There are many such developments throughout Scotland where people are experiencing a great many difficulties.
Last week I was in a part of my constituency known as Balgrayhill. The development is only 15 years old. It is a corridor type of development and yet almost every maisonette has fungus and dampness on the walls. The people who live in the top flats of the maisonettes, which have tar covered roofs, sometimes have tar running down their bedroom walls. This is a problem that cannot be tackled by local authorities alone.
Hon. Members with more experience than I have will know that Glasgow district council came into being only in 1974. Although the houses that we are talking about have been in existence for only 15 years, because of local government re-organisation they were not built by the authority now responsible for them. It is not fair that local authorities such as Glasgow should have to bear the burden and it is not fair that tenants have to pay as much as £80 or £90 a month for the dubious pleasure of living in these deplorable houses.
In the debate on the previous order mention was made of many of the regional council services. I feel that one regional council service that can help elderly council tenants is the home help service. Where tenants live alone home helps give an excellent back-up service and help tenants in need, but the service is under a great deal of pressure because of Government policies.
Although the Secretary of State would probably tell us that there have been no redundancies in the home help service, a policy of non-replacement of staff has been forced on local authorities. Home helps are having to look after more and more people and there is more and more pressure on the service. Because there is also pressure on the Health Service and hospitals are taking elderly patients only when their case is urgent, home helps have to look after people who should be in hospital. The Secretary of State should take that fact on board. It would be a shame if the service were brought to a standstill.
I am worried about another matter which has a direct link to housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) mentioned it. It is the road construction programme in the Glasgow area. Because of the policies of road construction, many excellent houses and first class communities have been torn apart. It is a shame that, if we are looking for more money to spend on repairs and repair grants in the public and private sectors, we should embark on a policy of building roads where they are not welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that he would welcome road development. If he wishes to have road development in Ayrshire I would be glad to give some of the developments taking place or being proposed in the city of Glasgow.

Mr. Lambie: Tell Strathclyde that.

Mr. Martin: I have told Strathclyde on numerous occasions that I do not want the Stepps bypass or the Blochairn link road. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not give approval to those projects.
It is easy for hon. Members to attack local government expenditure, but it should be remembered that many construction and repair contracts carried out in authorities like Glasgow go to the private sector. If we cut back on public expenditure, we shall do a great deal of harm to the small business man whom the Tory Party claims that it is supporting. Many businesses which have gone bankrupt in the past three years could have avoided bankruptcy if they had obtained local government contracts—contracts that would have been of benefit to the community.
I do not know why there is so much talk about the sale of council houses. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) argued that the sale of council houses is a cure-all for our problems in the housing sector. How can people buy their homes when in 1980 rent arrears in Scotland totalled £7 million and, on the Government's figures, were £12 million in 1982? Those rent arrears are a reflection of the hardship, difficulties and poverty experienced by many people in Scotland. I hope that the Secretary of State will try to support local authorities, which are doing a first-class job despite the circumstances, and those who have devoted their lives to public service and to helping the people of Strathclyde.

Mr. David Lambie: Since entering Parliament in 1970 I have attended, taken part in and voted on most of the debates on the rate support grant and the housing support grant. No matter on which side of the House I sat, I always opposed the orders being put forward by each Government. In that respect I and some of my colleagues have been consistent. If we had more consistency and could stop the practice whereby, if one sits on the Opposition Benches one says one thing, but when one sits on the Government Front Bench one says the opposite, the better it would be for Government and for the good name of Parliament.
As has been said in general terms in the debate, the 20 district councils in Scotland will receive no housing support grant in 1983–84. Unfortunately, the district council in my area, Cunninghame, is one of those 20 authorities. In 1979, that authority received £7⅓ million in housing support grant, at 1982–83 prices. We have been notified by the Secretary of State that for 1983–84 the housing support grant will be reduced to nil. That is a sign that the Government intend to phase out not only the housing support grant but all national and local subsidies for public sector housing.
I was interested to hear some of the points made by the Secretary of State, who opened the debate, and by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson). Both criticised the city of Glasgow, along with the district councils of Aberdeen, Stirling and Hamilton for spending too much money on housing. The Secretary of State has no say in how much money Glasgow district council spends on supervision, management repairs and maintenance. He can take action against them only if the district council does not carry out Government policy in general. But if the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Fife, East are so worried about the cost of maintaining and managing


housing in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Stirling and Hamilton, where they have no power, why do they not consider the management and maintenance costs for the Government bodies that are directly controlled by the Secretary of State? For example, in Irvine development corporation in my area, the supervision and management figure for last year, according to the rating review, was £85·38 a house. For repairs and maintenance it was £228·10 a house, which makes a total of £313·48 a house for houses that are not the same as the Glasgow stock but that have been built within the past 10 years.
If the Secretary of State is worried about that, why does he not tell the urban development corporation to cut down on the management costs and the fantastic repair figures? If he asked that corporation to carry out the Government's provisions for expenditure per house, there would be a difference of about £67·28, or £1·29 per week. Instead of that, the urban development corporation imposes on its tenants average increases of 85p per house per week. The corporation could reduce its rents by £1·29 per week.
The Scottish special housing association is another Government body which is directly under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That association today told all Members of Parliament that there would be an average increase next year of 75p per week, not in June or July—the normal time for a change—but at the beginning of the new local government financial year, in April. The average increase will be 75p, but it goes up to about £1·40. The figure for supervision and management in the Scottish special housing association is £55·25 per house, and for repairs and maintenance the figure is £225·47 per house. If the Secretary of State criticises Glasgow corporation and other local authorities, why does he not tell the Scottish special housing association to reduce the figures for management and maintenance and the Government provision for expenditure on those services per house? If he did that, it would mean an average reduction for all the tenants of the Scottish special housing association of 62p per week, instead of having to pay an increase of 75p per week. If the Government are serious and sincere in their attack on local authorities and make the same attack on the Scottish special housing association, all my constituents who are tenants of that association will get a reduction of 62p per week from May of this year. Then we should have something on which to congratulate the Government, instead of congratulating them on a policy of discrimination against council tenants and in favour of owner-occupiers.
If we draw a line from the Severn to the Wash, we find that male unemployment does not go over 10 per cent. south of that line. In the industrial areas of Scotland, most of which are represented by Opposition Members, male unemployment is over 20 per cent. In my constituency, it is over 28 per cent., and in the constituencies of most of my hon. Friends who represent Glasgow it is anything from 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. up to 50 per cent. It is strange that the industrial heartland of Scotland has this high male unemployment and gets none of the advantages of the so-called Government's economic policy, while male unemployment in the south of England is only up to 10 per cent. In fact, unemployment in the Prime Minister's constituency is 5 per cent.
Apart from male unemployment, the industrial heartland of Scotland, compared with the south-east of England, is a place where the majority of people live in tenanted property—either in the private or public sector.
Over 60 per cent. of the people live in council houses or in rented houses in the private sector. In those areas of England and Wales where there is little unemployment, and where people are still not suffering from Government policy, over 66 per cent. of the people live in owner-occupied houses. They are getting the benefit of Government policy as a result of low unemployment and they are also getting the benefit of the Government's taxation policy. while the Government discriminate against council tenants, the average mortgage holder in those areas of England and Wales benefits from reduced interest rates not by £1 per week but by £5 per week.
I am making the same case tonight as I have often made in the House. The Scottish people have been discriminated against by the Government. The Scottish people have been written off by the Government because the Government know that they do not have their support and that they will have even less support after the next election. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not have to go into the Lobbies to vote against the next Labour Government's housing policies and that they will remember the policies being carried out by the Conservatives. The Government are looking after their voters—the owner-occupiers in the south-east of England. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to remember our voters in the industrial heartlands of Scotland—the council tenants.

Mr. Bruce Milian: There will not be a reply from the Labour Front Bench, so I hope that the House will allow me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mrs. McElhone) for a very fine maiden speech. I had a close association over many years with Frank McElhone, and I know that there was no subject about which he felt more deeply than housing conditions, particularly in Glasgow and in his constituency. I know also that that deep feeling is shared by the new Member for Queen's Park. It emerged clearly, not only from the content of her speech this evening but from the way it was delivered. It was a speech that not only revealed a tremendous knowledge of her constituency, the conditions of the people there, but which also revealed a tremendous feeling for the hardships which unfortunately so many people in that constituency still suffer from to this day.
It has given many of my hon. Friends tremendous pleasure that my hon. Friend has been able to succeed her husband as the hon. Member for Queen's Park to carry on his work there, and indeed his work for Scotland and for a wider constituency as well, particularly in the latter years of his life. We know of my hon. Friend's deep involvement in the constituency and we look forward to further speeches from her, not only about Queen's Park but also in the wider Scottish interest. Tonight I join in congratulating my hon. Friend on surmounting so gracefully the first hurdle, that of delivering her maiden speech.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): May I first join the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mrs. McElhone) on what I am sure all hon. Members who listened would agree was an outstanding maiden speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) told the House, the hon. Lady's late husband held the respect of the entire House for his constituency work and his wide-ranging interests. The hon. Lady has spoken to the House with knowledge and conviction about the problems facing her constituents. I hope that it will not be long before we have the privilege of hearing the hon. Lady speaking again on housing and other matters. We all wish her well in her career in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]
We have also heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) adumbrating his well known consistency. Whenever there is a rate support grant order or a housing support grant order it does not matter who is on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman will be voting against it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East told the House, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made several wild generalisations at the beginning of the debate. He implied that the settlement was in some sense unreasonable. I shall go through the figures again. On expenditure, the figure for management and maintenance is an increase of 7 per cent. over last year. It is higher than the rate of inflation. It is based on a figure for 1982–83 of £233, which is higher than the average for 55 authorities in Scotland.
On income, the settlement implies an increase of £1 per week. The hon. Gentleman was not comparing like with like. He must compare this year's settlement figure with that of last year, or last year's outturn with this year—which we do not know without looking into a crystal ball. He must not confuse the two.
As my right hon. Friend told the House, the present expenditure on rents averages 6·6 per cent. of average earnings in Scotland. That compares with 10·2 per cent. in England and Wales. There is no doubt that that is a low figure. The implication of the settlement is that—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have many points to answer and only five minutes in which to do so.
The increase implied in the settlement figure will raise the percentage to about 7 per cent., which is a perfectly reasonable figure. People should give priority to housing expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) rightly dealt with the points raised by Opposition Members about the comparison with mortgage payments. He was right to say that there is a clear difference between the reduction in tax paid because someone spends his money in a certain way and an overall general subsidy. I agree with him that mortgage payments do not reflect total housing costs for owner occupiers. They must pay their repair and maintenance costs over and above their mortgage payments. If we take that into account, the average figure for tenants in Scotland is £5·38 per week compared with the average mortgage payment after tax of £23 per week.
The hon. Members for Garscadden and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) emphasised the importance of Glasgow. It receives £60 million net in capital allocation under the settlement. The Government are reasonable to point out to Glasgow that its rate fund contribution per

house is extremely high. It is £235 per house compared with an average for the remainder of Scotland of £138, an average for Scotland minus the four authorities that the Government have identified of slightly more than £100, and an average for England of £91. We are saying to Glasgow that it should bring down that figure to 40 per cent. above the Scottish average—not even to the Scottish average. That is a reasonable proposition.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about capital spending. The figure in the settlement of £255 million for capital expenditure compares with a figure last year of £282 million. There is a £15 million difference between that figure and the one quoted by the hon. Gentleman, because £15 million was withheld and transferred to the rate fund contribution. The provisional allocation is reduced by £27 million between the two years. However, the Government have enhanced the rate fund contribution by £35 million, which explains the difference between the two figures. It makes it clear that the Government, at a time of great difficulty, have protected capital spending in the settlement, as my right hon. Friend pointed out earlier.
This is a perfectly reasonable settlement of council tenants. Given that 51 per cent. of tenants receive rebates, a £1 rent increase is not unreasonable. It will be accepted as reasonable by council tenants. Indeed, it is a reasonable settlement from the taxpayers' and ratepayers' point of view, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17 December be approved.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved [Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 205.

Division No. 40]
[12 midnight


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Brotherton, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nick


Aspinwall, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Banks, Robert
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Churchill, W. S.


Best, Keith
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cockeram, Eric


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Corrie, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Costain, Sir Albert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Andrew
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brinton, Tim
Dover, Denshore






du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Durant, Tony
McQuarrie, Albert


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Major, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Elliott, Sir William
Mates, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Mather, Carol


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mawby, Ray


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fell, Sir Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mayhew, Patrick


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mellor, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miscampbell, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Moate, Roger


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moore, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan, Geraint


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Murphy, Christopher


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Myles, David


Greenway, Harry
Neale, Gerrard


Grieve, Percy
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Newton, Tony


Grist, Ian
Normanton, Tom


Gummer, John Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Hon A.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hannam, John
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Hastings, Stephen
Patten, John (Oxford)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Sir Ian


Heddle, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Henderson, Barry
Pollock, Alexander


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hill, James
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hooson, Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Royle, Sir Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Richard


Lee, John
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Smith, Dudley


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Squire, Robin





Stainton, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stanley, John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Watson, John


Stokes, John
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Donald
Wickenden, Keith


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Vaughan, Dr Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. David Hunt and


Wakeham, John
Mr. Tristran Garel-Jones.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Eastham, Ken


Adams, Allen
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Field, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Golding, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Gourlay, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Graham, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Cant, R. B.
Harman, Harriet (Peckham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Stanley
Homewood, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Robin F.
Hoyle, Douglas


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McCartney, Hugh






McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheerman, Barry


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Mrs Renée


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McKelvey, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silverman, Julius


McMahon, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Marks, Kenneth
Soley, Clive


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stallard, A. W.


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David


Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Morton, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tilley, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tinn, James


Newens, Stanley
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Park, George
Warden, Gareth


Parker, John
Watkins, David


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Michael


Pendry, Tom
White, Frank R.


Penhaligon, David
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Race, Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wright, Sheila


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)



Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Ryman, John
Mr. Norman Hogg.


Sever, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Falkland Islands (Franks Report)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I, in the presence of the Leader of the House, ask for the protection of the House on a House of Commons issue? In the last few minutes it has become fairly common knowledge that tomorrow at 11 am and again at 2.45 pm, on the Prime Minister's instructions, Mr. Bernard Ingham will brief the press on what Downing Street believes to be important in the Franks report.
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as one of many who gave evidence to the Franks committee, that hon. Members and many others who are concerned will not see the report until 3.30 pm, and that if anyone is to brief the press or the lobby on the Franks report it should be Lord Franks, not a representative of Downing Street. As I understand it, the report is not the property of Downing Street until it is delivered to the House.
I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the sense that early tomorrow morning you raise the matter with Mr. Speaker. The motion that I have been able to table at the very last moment is
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to ensure that no official will provide briefings for journalists on the Franks report before she has made her statement to the House.
I do this in no party political spirit, and least of all with any point of view on the Falklands campaign. It is a House of Commons matter and it deserves the attention of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I shall put the observations of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the arrangements for tomorrow are not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand your reticence about moving into these waters, but, as the Leader of the House is present, and as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has made some relevant points, perhaps the Leader of the House would care to respond to what he said.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I shall respond by accepting at once the concluding comments of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—that the matter be put to Mr. Speaker. I think that that is the appropriate course.

Orders of the Day — CURRENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

SEA FISHERIES

That the Fishing Vessels (Temporary Financial Assistance) Scheme 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1686), a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Corby Community Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hunt.]

Mr. Bill Homewood: I am raising the subject of the proposed closure of Corby community hospital on the Adjournment first to bring formally to the Department's attention the acute sense of shock and anger that the proposal has aroused in the local community, and, secondly, to enable me once again to bring to the Department's attention the severe under-funding of the Oxford regional health authority and the effect on the district health authorities in the region which has given rise to the problems that the Kettering district health authority faces.
I have had reams of correspondence with the Ministry about funding and have raised the matter on the Adjournment of the House before. Northamptonshire Members of Parliament recently met the Minister and were given undertakings on two claims that were made. The first was that he would seriously examine our contention that Oxford regional health authority was unjustly funded under the terms of the resource allocation working party formula because the population figures that are used are always two years out of date and that the region, especially Northamptonshire, was one of rapidly growing population. The second undertaking was that the Minister would consult the chairman of the Oxford regional health authority about our belief that Kettering district health authority was further maligned in that its funding from the regional health authority was even more out of line than the rest of the region.
We have heard nothing of those undertakings. I hope that the Minister will address himself to them in his reply.
Only this morning I received a letter from the Northampton branch of the British Medical Association, once again drawing attention to the county's underfunding. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Minister of the draconian options that were drawn up by the Oxford regional health authority when it was examining its financial position for the coming year. I hope that in his reply the Minister can show not only his understanding and sympathy but his willingness to provide more practical help.
My immediate concern is about the consequences of those financial problems in terms of the Corby community hospital and its proposed closure by the Kettering district health authority, and to impress upon the Minister the fact that such a closure would be an injustice in any town the size of Corby. When Corby is seeking to prise itself from the ground following the industrial assault that it suffered after the closure of its iron and steel works, it would be nothing short of social rape and would be another nail in the coffin of the social fabric of the town that so many of its people are struggling to secure.
Why has the Kettering district health authority chosen to make the decision to close the Corby hospital? The basic answer is that it needs to trim £750,000 from its budget, in view of the underfunding that I have already mentioned. The reason why the closure of the Corby hospital is the largest single contributor to the saving, at £180,000, must be that that it was such an easy option. The £180,000 represents just three-quarters of 1 per cent. of the authority's expenditure. However, to find that amount


within its other services and hospitals would have involved a deep study and analysis of its activities. I accept that the authority would have had difficulty in carrying that out.
As its justification for the closure, the authority offers the subjective conclusion of those taking the decision that this way offers the least harm and the greatest benefit to patient care in the district. It is not easy for a layman to question medical opinions. They exist in that world of sophisticated elitism that can be compared with that of watch repairers and television mechanics. However, questions have to be asked. Did the least harm include the harm that would be done to the elderly relatives, and the neighbours of the elderly people who would now give the so-called community care about which we hear so much? The Corby community hospital's main activity is the care of the elderly.
I am an authority on community care. I have living with me a 90-year-old mother-in-law who is almost blind. All our community care comes from my wife. I have an 88-year-old father who is currently in hospital but who from time to time is discharged to his retirement bungalow and into community care, which amounts to meals on wheels four days a week and a home help twice a week. but for the existence of my wife and me, he would long ago have starved from Thursday to Monday and would never have had a change of clothing. My wife is 64 years of age. Had she been a nurse, she would have retired four years ago. Such are the circumstances of most of the people who will have to care for those who will not be able to be taken into the Corby community hospital.
I have expert opinion on my side about the trauma that will be inflicted. The Northamptonshire county council director of social services has said that more elderly people will have to be taken into residential care if the hospital closes. His committee's policy of keeping the elderly in the community will become unworkable because the home help organisers will be unable to cope.
Was the harm to friends and relatives taken into account by the health authority? Did the authority take into account the effect on the morale of people in Corby when they see that Kettering, Wellingborough, Rushden and Market Harborough—all within close proximity and much smaller than Corby—have their own hospital facilities?
The Corby hospital is vital. It is the only hospital facility in a town with a population of 53,000. There can be no doubt about full use being made of it. Already it has cared for 1,200 patients since it was opened only three years ago. That statistic can only reflect the great convenience and security and the allaying of anxiety both for the patients and for their families. The hospital has become an integral part of the town's services.
In very practical terms, the 1981 census revealed that Corby has the highest incidence of non-car-owners in the county—46·3 per cent. The bus journey to Kettering general hospital takes 50 minutes and costs 88p for a single journey. In this respect, it must be remembered that those who are caring for the people in community care are already elderly and will have to make the journey to Kettering general hospital to visit if those for whom they care have to be hospitalised.
The consequences of closure are self-explanatory. There will be direct effects on patients and their families. It should also be remembered that, since the steel industry

closures, unemployment in Corby has never been less than 20 per cent. In other words, one in five are out of work—the ninth highest level in the country.
The measure of support for retention of the hospital is clearly demonstrated by the fact that a petition with 9,000 signatures has already been delivered to the Minister's office. I believe that, come what may, justice will be served only if the Minister intervenes to keep the hospital open. If, having received those 9,000 letters, the Minister in his wisdom determines that the hospital should close, it will be a savage blow to Corby—comparable to the closure of the iron and steel works—and will negate most of the Government's other activities in the area. The Government have been fairly good in helping us to achieve an industrial base to solve the unemployment problem, but if they close the hospital they will undermine socially all that they have done industrially.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) has spoken frankly and movingly in support of the Corby community hospital and in opposition to its closure. He has certainly taken the issue up passionately and wholeheartedly on behalf of his constituents and I have been left in no doubt about the strength of local feeling on this issue. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, he and his colleagues have seen my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health about National Health Service resources in Northamptonshire and he and those hon. Members who accompanied him will hear shortly from my hon. and learned Friend in response to their meeting with him.
The hon. Gentleman also brought a delegation representing local interests to see me and presented a petition with some 9,000 signatures. As he has said, by any standards a petition of that size is both compelling and impressive. It certainly impressed itself on my officials who had to stagger back to their building with nine boxes of it. It is not the only petition that we have received about the Corby hospital and there has been a steady flow of letters and comment about the proposal to close it.
I would like to say a word here about my own interest in Corby. My previous post was as a Department of Environment Minister with responsibility for new towns. I know Corby well. I have been interested in its growth and development for many years, and I visited the new town in 1979. Of course I sympathise with the wider problems it has faced and, although I readily appreciate the local feeling that a series of economic body blows has sapped the morale of the community, all the indications are that the spirit and enterprise of Corby is enabling it to cope and survive in a far more convincing way than many other communities.
The hon. Gentleman certainly acknowledged the fact that central and local Government have not abandoned Corby to its fate but have put a great deal of effort and money into the town. There are promising indications of the impact that this is having on the economic future of Corby. I do not want to overstress this point in any simple way, because the stress and burden of unemployment and economic uncertainty are a very real problem in Corby, but I must make it clear that the possible closure of the community hospital cannot be portrayed as yet another savage blow by an uncaring Government.
As I want to explain clearly, the critical decisions about the future of the hospital are yet to be made. I have to make it crystal clear, as I have done in more than one Adjournment debate in this House, that I have no intention of prejudicing the possible involvement of Ministers by getting closely involved in the detailed arguments during this debate. The statutory process has to be worked through. However, it is important that the basis of the decision-making process is made clear. This has to rest on the best, the most appropriate and the most efficient way of providing health care facilities to a community within a given level of resources, and it must be remembered that the responsibilities of Kettering health authority extend far wider than Corby. No matter how much local loyalty, commitment and strength of feeling there is in regard to a hospital, and no matter how much it is a part of a community, I am sure that the House understands that these considerations must be related to those of service and resource.
Corby community hospital is a small hospital within the Kettering district health authority. It has 20 GP beds. It was originally planned to provide medical and surgical treatment of a straightforward and non-specialist kind to patients of all ages. In practice the hospital has provided care mainly for the elderly—for convalescence after discharge from another hospital, holiday admissions, social admissions and family relief admissions.
It is widely acknowledged, and I would like personally to endorse the view, that the hospital provides a valuable and efficiently used resource. I must also stress though, that the majority of people needing hospital care—especially of a more serious kind—use the other hospitals in the district, particularly at Kettering.
The Kettering health authority is faced with a potential overspending of about £0·6 million this year, 1982–83. The reasons for this are complex and lie in the historical patttern of resource allocation within the Oxford regional health authority and, before April 1982, within the Northamptonshire area health authority. There would be little argument about the suggestion that Kettering has been an underfunded part of an underfunded area health authority in terms of its distance from its target allocation. The regional health authority, whose job it is to allocate resources to its constituent health authorities, adopted a sound policy of moving all of its area health authorities to within plus or minus 2½ per cent. of their targets.
They achieved a great deal of success in Northampton which, by April 1981, had moved from 11·19 per cent. below target to 3·97 per cent. below. This was at area level. Kettering district became an authority in its own right in the 1982 restructuring exercise, and the RHA is carrying out further research to determine district targets. There has long been an expectation on the part of the district of an upturn in its financial position, and there has been a corresponding tendency to move to an overspending, albeit within a manageable margin, although this has been monitored by both the district and the region. The health authority was faced this year with last year's overspend being the first charge on its new allocation of resources. Unless it can bring its overspending under control, this situation will be compounded in future years.
That says something about the history of how the present situation has been reached. We come now to the attempts made by Kettering to deal with its problems. First, I must stress that the Kettering health authority has

an overriding statutory responsibility to live within its budget, and it has had to face this responsibility squarely in the face of the present potential overspend. I should say that the search for economy and good housekeeping is not new to Kettering. It is a process that it has been going through for many years.
The authority was therefore faced with the need to realise substantial savings in an already lean service. In coming up with this package, it kept a number of basic principles in mind—in particular, to spread any reductions in services as widely as possible, both geographically and across the range of services provided and, secondly, to minimise the diminution in patient care. The decision which has been put forward to close Corby community hospital—at a saving of some £180,000 a year—has been taken not in isolation but as part of a total package which was designed in accordance with the principles already mentioned.
The health authority considered a list of some 28 options before deciding on a package of eight which included the closure of Corby. The decision to close Corby has been taken reluctantly by the health authority, and it has announced a firm intention to re-open it as soon as funds are available. The decision has been endorsed, with equal reluctance, by local GPs, the hospital medical advisory committee, the GP advisory committee, and the district medical committee. They have all recognised and acknowledged that the alternative ways of saving £180,000 would be more damaging to patient services across the district than the closure of Corby community hospital. Indeed, serious damage would be done to services on which the population of Corby in general rely, rather than the mainly elderly patients who are cared for so devotedly in the community hospital by their GPs.
Having explained how and why the present situation has developed, I want to repeat the procedures involved in the closure of health facilities so that the House understands fully the role of Ministers in the process. A health authority cannot just say "We need to do this, therefore, we shall". The Government have laid down that any proposals must be consulted upon, even those which have to be implemented quickly as emergency measures. They, too, must be consulted on as soon as possible.
This consultation is normally in two stages. There is an informal sounding out of local interest groups either in the context of general planning proposals for the development of services in the district or, more directly, as has already taken place in this case, by focusing on a number of options designed to meet particular objectives. Views and comments received during this stage will clearly influence the final package of proposals again as they did in this case. Then the health authority must move to formal consultation on one or more specific proposals. This must be centred around a formal consultaion document. This document must be circulated to a very wide range of bodies locally—community health councils, local authorities, staff representative committees, family practitioner committees, local medical advisory committees—medical, nursing, paramedical and so on—local professional representative committees, other health authorities affected by the proposals, the regional health authority and local Members of Parliament.
Officials of my Department are also informed so that consideration can be given at that stage to any national implications of the proposals. Consultation is not confined to formally constituted local bodies such as I have


mentioned. The health authority normally sends copies and invites comments from all relevant voluntary bodies, and of course it is open to anyone to request a copy of the document from the health authority and to submit comments.
Once the comments have all been received the health authority must then re-examine its own proposals in the light of those comments. In particular we attach particular weight to the views of community health councils in their role as watchdogs for the local consumer interest—patients and potential patients and clients of the NHS. If the CHC is unable to agree to the main substance of the proposals the health authority cannot implement them. They must be referred first to the regional health authority—which will look for a compromise acceptable to the CHC yet which will still achieve the original objectives of the proposals—and if the CHC still objects Ministers must take the final decision.
I should emphasise that the CHC's power carries with it certain responsibilities. The main one is that the CHC's objection should not be trivial. We expect the CHC to submit a constructive and detailed counter-proposal which considers fully all the factors that have led the health authority to make the proposal. It may be that this counterproposal will enable a satisfactory solution to be achieved. In this particular case, the formal consultation period ends tomorrow, 18 January, and the CHC will be considering its position on Thursday. This should enable the Kettering district health authority to take final decisions at its meeting on 25 January.
If the case then has to go to the RHA and subsequently to Ministers, it will be for my right hon. Friend and me to take the decision. I can assure the hon. Member here and now that we shall take full account of all the views presented to us and pay particular attention to his words today.
The hon. Member may find it helpful if I talk for a little about the allocation of resources in the NHS in general and in Oxford region and Kettering in particular. I welcome this opportunity because I am concerned that resource allocation in the NHS is a complex subject not well understood by people outside the Service itself, and, indeed, many of those working in the NHS would not claim more than a fairly superficial understanding.
The essential problem is that we do not have any objective measures to show with precision the right level of resources to make available for health services in any particular locality. There is a great deal of truth in the comment made many years ago by a former Minister of

Health that the demand for health services is potentially infinite. The only real limit on the size of the NHS is the quantity of resources any Government are prepared to make available for health care.
More resources have been made available. Money for the NHS has grown about 16 per cent. faster than the retail price index and since this Government came to power the share of the gross domestic product spent on the NHS has increased from 4·8 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. A great deal of this has gone on better pay and conditions for staff, but even so services have grown—by at least 5·5 per cent. since 1978–79. Even so, the amount of growth or development moneys available to the NHS is finite and there is historical inequality in the way that money has been allocated in the past. The fact remains, however, that the region is responsible for allocations to districts. As the hon. Gentleman will know the Minister suggested that the hon. Gentleman would perhaps wish to take up Kettering's case with the region direct. I am sure that he has done this on more than one occasion. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this particular subject at this time.
Proposals made by health authorities in relation to change of use or even closure of health buildings raise important issues for the relationship between local democratic processes and the policies of central Government. This debate provides a way for local concern about the way in which a local health authority is seeking to implement the Government's policies regarding the NHS to be expressed to those of us responsible for those policies. I am pleased to have the opportunity to expand in some detail on these national policies, the reasons why we and previous Governments have adopted them and the way in which they affect the particular case before us today.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the representations that he has made tonight and those made by the very impressive deputation that he brought to see me will be properly considered if, as I said, there is a dispute over this closure and the CHC maintains a view and the matter comes to Ministers for their ultimate consideration. We shall look at the matter in great detail and with great care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that, by having set out the arguments tonight and by having heard the views that I have expressed as to the position in which Ministers are now and the position in which they will be if the matter is referred to them, the interests of Corby have been very much to the forefront of all our minds this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o' clock.